Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
Glurp
8741 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4024

Subscriber

  Reply # 1979897 19-Mar-2018 14:56
One person supports this post
Send private message

As long as we are so busy passing laws to protect people from themselves, when are junk food palaces going to be banned? There is plenty of solid scientific evidence that hamburger heavens clog arteries and cause diabetes. Not if such food is consumed in moderation, of course, but people cannot be counted on to do things in moderation so they must be protected from themselves. Of course alcohol should also be the first to go. Smoking while driving and talking to a passenger must certainly be prohibited, as these are distractions. Jogging can only be permitted after a full medical examination, as this is known to have caused heart attacks in the unfit. Restaurants must carry warnings against consuming large pieces of meat due to the danger of choking. No motorcycles without training wheels and no swimming without a life vest. I could go on and on.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


5316 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2156


  Reply # 1979902 19-Mar-2018 15:00
Send private message

Pedalling around vineyards raises another issue - drink cycling.  I see in Marlborough on weekends.  People cycling (badly) on hired bikes evidently intoxicated.





Mike

 
 
 
 




13912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2532

Trusted

  Reply # 1979914 19-Mar-2018 15:15
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

As long as we are so busy passing laws to protect people from themselves, when are junk food palaces going to be banned? There is plenty of solid scientific evidence that hamburger heavens clog arteries and cause diabetes. Not if such food is consumed in moderation, of course, but people cannot be counted on to do things in moderation so they must be protected from themselves. Of course alcohol should also be the first to go. Smoking while driving and talking to a passenger must certainly be prohibited, as these are distractions. Jogging can only be permitted after a full medical examination, as this is known to have caused heart attacks in the unfit. Restaurants must carry warnings against consuming large pieces of meat due to the danger of choking. No motorcycles without training wheels and no swimming without a life vest. I could go on and on.

 

 

 

 

:-) I was waiting for such a post. In a good way.

 

There are risks with everything. An olympic athlete might slip at walking pace on a slippery goo on the footpath and paralyse himself. No one is immune. Coin the wrapped un cotton wool phrase.

 

Its about mitigating more common risks that can and do cause poor outcomes and a cost to society. Helmets on cycles is such a mitigation. A teeny inconvenience. Its like house insurance, not a lot of money, and low low odds, but the possible outcome is terrible. I'd rate a head injury as worse. You only have one head, just as you only have two eyes, protect them. 


2550 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1239

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1979916 19-Mar-2018 15:16
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

So the same should apply to seatbelts in cars when on quiet country lanes?

 

 

As has already been pointed out, the comparison to seat belts is invalid. A helmet will only protect a small part of your body, and is unlikely to be of any benefit to a cyclist. A seatbelt protects many parts of your body, and is likely to be save you from injury.

 

 




13912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2532

Trusted

  Reply # 1979917 19-Mar-2018 15:16
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

Pedalling around vineyards raises another issue - drink cycling.  I see in Marlborough on weekends.  People cycling (badly) on hired bikes evidently intoxicated.

 

 

Drink Cycling!   My daily GZ chuckle sorted for today, good call!




13912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2532

Trusted

  Reply # 1979923 19-Mar-2018 15:22
Send private message

frankv:

 

tdgeek:

 

So the same should apply to seatbelts in cars when on quiet country lanes?

 

 

As has already been pointed out, the comparison to seat belts is invalid. A helmet will only protect a small part of your body, and is unlikely to be of any benefit to a cyclist. A seatbelt protects many parts of your body, and is likely to be save you from injury.

 

 

 

 

The small part of the body is the head, but if you feel a helmet is of little benefit, well, words escape me. I could whack your head at very low speed with a concrete bar, thats probably a reasonable comparison to falling off a cycle onto a curb or road. Let alone thrown off by a faster moving car. No helmet? man.

 

In a car, at urban speed limit or quicker, a seatbelt does nothing. It might help your head if you hit a concrete wall at 50k, but so will a helmet on a cycle at cycling speeds. In a quiet country lane, akin to a cycleway, seatbelt has zero value


2550 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1239

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1979926 19-Mar-2018 15:31
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

IANAL, but  most vineyards will be a 'workplace', so the owner will want to make sure everyone on the land is wearing a helmet, as they are likely required to do this under health and safety laws. So even if the law did change and helmets weren't compulsory, it is likely all workplaces would still require them.                  

 

 

I don't think land owners will *want* people to wear helmets; they will feel forced to do so. All of these health and safety laws are for no-brainer compliance; you don't have to think about safety, you just comply and wish/think/believe/don't care that your workplace is safe.

 

 


2550 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1239

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1979927 19-Mar-2018 15:36
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

frankv:

 

tdgeek:

 

So the same should apply to seatbelts in cars when on quiet country lanes?

 

 

As has already been pointed out, the comparison to seat belts is invalid. A helmet will only protect a small part of your body, and is unlikely to be of any benefit to a cyclist. A seatbelt protects many parts of your body, and is likely to be save you from injury.

 

 

 

 

The small part of the body is the head, but if you feel a helmet is of little benefit, well, words escape me. I could whack your head at very low speed with a concrete bar, thats probably a reasonable comparison to falling off a cycle onto a curb or road. Let alone thrown off by a faster moving car. No helmet? man.

 

 

I never said it was of little benefit; I said it was *unlikely* to be of benefit. Once in your life, it will save you some damage.

 

 

In a car, at urban speed limit or quicker, a seatbelt does nothing. It might help your head if you hit a concrete wall at 50k, but so will a helmet on a cycle at cycling speeds. In a quiet country lane, akin to a cycleway, seatbelt has zero value

 

 

Now it's my turn to be astounded. At urban speeds or quicker, a seat belt is of *huge* benefit. Or was "quicker" a typo?

 

 




13912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2532

Trusted

  Reply # 1979936 19-Mar-2018 16:02
Send private message

frankv:

tdgeek:


frankv:


tdgeek:


So the same should apply to seatbelts in cars when on quiet country lanes?



As has already been pointed out, the comparison to seat belts is invalid. A helmet will only protect a small part of your body, and is unlikely to be of any benefit to a cyclist. A seatbelt protects many parts of your body, and is likely to be save you from injury.


 



The small part of the body is the head, but if you feel a helmet is of little benefit, well, words escape me. I could whack your head at very low speed with a concrete bar, thats probably a reasonable comparison to falling off a cycle onto a curb or road. Let alone thrown off by a faster moving car. No helmet? man.



I never said it was of little benefit; I said it was *unlikely* to be of benefit. Once in your life, it will save you some damage.



In a car, at urban speed limit or quicker, a seatbelt does nothing. It might help your head if you hit a concrete wall at 50k, but so will a helmet on a cycle at cycling speeds. In a quiet country lane, akin to a cycleway, seatbelt has zero value



Now it's my turn to be astounded. At urban speeds or quicker, a seat belt is of *huge* benefit. Or was "quicker" a typo?


 



I was meaning urban at 50k but most travel st 60k I should have been clearer.

I hit a car head on in my only car accident t. 55k. Wet. He also on a green light moved over to turn at last minute. No chance. I out my arm across girlfriends chest to help her and bang. No issue no one was thrown around. Low speed, car crumbling, legs arms all combine to be minor impact for us. Now on the open road at closing speeds that’s a very different problem and seatbelt will clearly help a lot.

13602 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6370

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1979937 19-Mar-2018 16:03
3 people support this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

As long as we are so busy passing laws to protect people from themselves, when are junk food palaces going to be banned? There is plenty of solid scientific evidence that hamburger heavens clog arteries and cause diabetes. Not if such food is consumed in moderation, of course, but people cannot be counted on to do things in moderation so they must be protected from themselves. Of course alcohol should also be the first to go. Smoking while driving and talking to a passenger must certainly be prohibited, as these are distractions. Jogging can only be permitted after a full medical examination, as this is known to have caused heart attacks in the unfit. Restaurants must carry warnings against consuming large pieces of meat due to the danger of choking. No motorcycles without training wheels and no swimming without a life vest. I could go on and on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Talking with my son, even on grass a bike helmet can lessen the impact on the brain. Coming off a bike at a low speed of say 10k and striking an egg sized stone has a likely hood of causing brain damage. 

 

He and I discussed this over the weekend and he believes the "nitwits" promoting the abolishing of the law need to spend some time with patients in rehab units to see what it is really like to have disabilities. I personally don't get the problem, the helmets are lightweight, not expensive, easy to wear and can prevent very serious injury and guess what being disabled is not fun at all, riding bikes safely is.

 

I believe this whole anti helmet thing is a pile of petulance. 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


Glurp
8741 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4024

Subscriber

  Reply # 1980001 19-Mar-2018 17:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Talking with my son, even on grass a bike helmet can lessen the impact on the brain. Coming off a bike at a low speed of say 10k and striking an egg sized stone has a likely hood of causing brain damage. 

 

He and I discussed this over the weekend and he believes the "nitwits" promoting the abolishing of the law need to spend some time with patients in rehab units to see what it is really like to have disabilities. I personally don't get the problem, the helmets are lightweight, not expensive, easy to wear and can prevent very serious injury and guess what being disabled is not fun at all, riding bikes safely is.

 

I believe this whole anti helmet thing is a pile of petulance. 

 

 

Welcome back Mike. Good to see you again.

 

I learned to ride a bike at an early age. Throughout my childhood and youth, I rode long distances through city and country traffic to school and other places. I never wore a helmet. Neither did anyone else. Most of us survived the experience.

 

I am not against helmets or other protective devices. I am against coercion and the 'one size fits all' approach of the law. Information and education should be widely available so people can make informed choices, but the choice should be up to the individual, not the government. Exception only for children, of course. Although I and many others made it through our childhoods unscathed, children must be protected.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


12165 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3969

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1980007 19-Mar-2018 17:08
Send private message

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:


As long as we are so busy passing laws to protect people from themselves, when are junk food palaces going to be banned? There is plenty of solid scientific evidence that hamburger heavens clog arteries and cause diabetes. Not if such food is consumed in moderation, of course, but people cannot be counted on to do things in moderation so they must be protected from themselves. Of course alcohol should also be the first to go. Smoking while driving and talking to a passenger must certainly be prohibited, as these are distractions. Jogging can only be permitted after a full medical examination, as this is known to have caused heart attacks in the unfit. Restaurants must carry warnings against consuming large pieces of meat due to the danger of choking. No motorcycles without training wheels and no swimming without a life vest. I could go on and on.


 



 


Talking with my son, even on grass a bike helmet can lessen the impact on the brain. Coming off a bike at a low speed of say 10k and striking an egg sized stone has a likely hood of causing brain damage. 


He and I discussed this over the weekend and he believes the "nitwits" promoting the abolishing of the law need to spend some time with patients in rehab units to see what it is really like to have disabilities. I personally don't get the problem, the helmets are lightweight, not expensive, easy to wear and can prevent very serious injury and guess what being disabled is not fun at all, riding bikes safely is.


I believe this whole anti helmet thing is a pile of petulance. 



It seems to me that the airbag helmet I referred to solves the problem.

No sweaty helmet unless you crash, then it springs into action.

If it isn't legal here, it jolly well should be.







13912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2532

Trusted

  Reply # 1980043 19-Mar-2018 17:54
Send private message

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:


As long as we are so busy passing laws to protect people from themselves, when are junk food palaces going to be banned? There is plenty of solid scientific evidence that hamburger heavens clog arteries and cause diabetes. Not if such food is consumed in moderation, of course, but people cannot be counted on to do things in moderation so they must be protected from themselves. Of course alcohol should also be the first to go. Smoking while driving and talking to a passenger must certainly be prohibited, as these are distractions. Jogging can only be permitted after a full medical examination, as this is known to have caused heart attacks in the unfit. Restaurants must carry warnings against consuming large pieces of meat due to the danger of choking. No motorcycles without training wheels and no swimming without a life vest. I could go on and on.


 



 


Talking with my son, even on grass a bike helmet can lessen the impact on the brain. Coming off a bike at a low speed of say 10k and striking an egg sized stone has a likely hood of causing brain damage. 


He and I discussed this over the weekend and he believes the "nitwits" promoting the abolishing of the law need to spend some time with patients in rehab units to see what it is really like to have disabilities. I personally don't get the problem, the helmets are lightweight, not expensive, easy to wear and can prevent very serious injury and guess what being disabled is not fun at all, riding bikes safely is.


I believe this whole anti helmet thing is a pile of petulance. 



I feel for some it satisfies the anti establishment need. I don’t mean that for all though. We can’t say ban the law and expect humans to make the correct decision even though many will. It’s not a nanny state issue it’s a silly human issue



13912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2532

Trusted

  Reply # 1980059 19-Mar-2018 18:21
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

MikeB4:

 

Talking with my son, even on grass a bike helmet can lessen the impact on the brain. Coming off a bike at a low speed of say 10k and striking an egg sized stone has a likely hood of causing brain damage. 

 

He and I discussed this over the weekend and he believes the "nitwits" promoting the abolishing of the law need to spend some time with patients in rehab units to see what it is really like to have disabilities. I personally don't get the problem, the helmets are lightweight, not expensive, easy to wear and can prevent very serious injury and guess what being disabled is not fun at all, riding bikes safely is.

 

I believe this whole anti helmet thing is a pile of petulance. 

 

 

Welcome back Mike. Good to see you again.

 

I learned to ride a bike at an early age. Throughout my childhood and youth, I rode long distances through city and country traffic to school and other places. I never wore a helmet. Neither did anyone else. Most of us survived the experience.

 

I am not against helmets or other protective devices. I am against coercion and the 'one size fits all' approach of the law. Information and education should be widely available so people can make informed choices, but the choice should be up to the individual, not the government. Exception only for children, of course. Although I and many others made it through our childhoods unscathed, children must be protected.

 

 

 

 

I did too, but no way were my girls riding cycles in this new traffic.

 

Its fine to avoid Govt coercion, but why does the Govt  coerce people to force them to use helmets?




13912 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2532

Trusted

  Reply # 1980061 19-Mar-2018 18:22
Send private message

Geektastic:
MikeB4:

 

Rikkitic:

 

 

 

As long as we are so busy passing laws to protect people from themselves, when are junk food palaces going to be banned? There is plenty of solid scientific evidence that hamburger heavens clog arteries and cause diabetes. Not if such food is consumed in moderation, of course, but people cannot be counted on to do things in moderation so they must be protected from themselves. Of course alcohol should also be the first to go. Smoking while driving and talking to a passenger must certainly be prohibited, as these are distractions. Jogging can only be permitted after a full medical examination, as this is known to have caused heart attacks in the unfit. Restaurants must carry warnings against consuming large pieces of meat due to the danger of choking. No motorcycles without training wheels and no swimming without a life vest. I could go on and on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Talking with my son, even on grass a bike helmet can lessen the impact on the brain. Coming off a bike at a low speed of say 10k and striking an egg sized stone has a likely hood of causing brain damage. 

 

 

 

He and I discussed this over the weekend and he believes the "nitwits" promoting the abolishing of the law need to spend some time with patients in rehab units to see what it is really like to have disabilities. I personally don't get the problem, the helmets are lightweight, not expensive, easy to wear and can prevent very serious injury and guess what being disabled is not fun at all, riding bikes safely is.

 

 

 

I believe this whole anti helmet thing is a pile of petulance. 

 



It seems to me that the airbag helmet I referred to solves the problem.

No sweaty helmet unless you crash, then it springs into action.

If it isn't legal here, it jolly well should be.

 

Whats the cost? $200? $350? Maybe a motorcycle helmet, and knee and elbow pads and a speed restriction of 5kph might be cheaper!


1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.