Rhandhali posted:

Rhandhali posted:

BUSH 2112 posted:

You make maybe the least convincing case that I've ever heard. For one thing, normal people don't give two fucks about cycling. It's a hobbyist thing in this country, and not having helmet laws isn't going to change that. For another thing, no one stops riding a bike because they have to wear a helmet. They stop because a car is faster, more comfortable, and safer in a country that was designed around driving a car to get to where you're going. Third, trying to estimate how many people were "saved" by helmet laws is ridiculous and idiotic, just like trying to estimate how many people were saved by concealed carry laws.

You know how to get more Americans to ride bikes?



Just kidding, that won't work, either.

Rhandhali posted:

Exactly. Best estimates are that maybe 160 people a year are "saved" by helmet laws. In the meantime that's hundreds of thousands of people not on bikes and in their cars.


It's almost like there are other things that make cycling dangerous that have nothing at all to do with helmets! Imagine that. Also, when you require kids to wear bike helmets guess what happens? They stop cycling. They then become adults who don't cycle and consider the bicycle as a children's toy and not a real method of transportation, perpetuating the cycle,

Wear a helmet if you want. That little bit of styrofoam might do good but nowhere ear as much good as getting more cyclists on the road; helmet laws actively make cycling more dangerous by decreasing ridership.


12 deaths in five years. Truly an epidemic.

Rhandhali posted:

Wear a helmet if you want. That little bit of styrofoam might do good but nowhere ear as much good as getting more cyclists on the road; helmet laws actively make cycling more dangerous by decreasing ridership.

Malmanous posted:

Lots of Children ride bikes to school in New Zealand. Then they start driving cars, not because of our helmet laws, but because our cities and towns are just not designed around the bike and we dont have decent public transport. Also 12 deaths is 12 too many.

Experto Crede posted:

I've been hearing a lot of vague stuff about Clinton in the Senate over Benghazi, but what exactly is going on, from an objective view? (Too much stuff about it online is angry GOP people ranting) Also, what's the context of that "What difference does it make?" bit?


Continuing the family tradition.

Crasscrab posted:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310545-1

Watch it yourself.

Necc0 posted:

Barely over 8k views. So drat shameful

Rhandhali posted:

Dad is doing the right thing.

Helmet laws decrease ridership and make biking less safe. They make cycling less convenient and therefore less attractive. That means there are more cars and fewer cyclists who are now in greater danger than they would have been otherwise. Drivers are also more cautious around unhelmeted cyclists than they are around helmeted ones. City cycle programs are murdered in their infancy by helmet laws.

quote:

In 2006, more than 44,000 bicyclists in the U.S. were injured in traffic crashes and 773 bicyclists died as a result of bicycle-related injuries.

However, only a small fraction, possibly as low as 10% of crashes causing injury are ever recorded by the police.

Ninety-five percent of the bicyclists killed in 2006 reportedly weren’t wearing helmets.

Deaths among bicyclists younger than 16 have gone down by 84% since 1975, while deaths among bicyclists 16 and older have more than doubled.

Rhandhali posted:

Nobody says this about diabetes or heart disease, but as soon an utterly insignificant number of people splatter their brains on the road it's TOO MANY and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. I mean a dozen people isn't even snakebite territory. People die, get over it. If you want to do something about it worry about something that might actually make a difference

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2ZNLb_SBbuA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D2ZNLb_SBbuA%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded

The Zombie Guy posted:

I live in Ontario, but my wife and I grocery shop in the states quite often. Last time we were at Wegman's, I went by the magazine rack to see if I could find a video game magazine to browse through. I wasn't able to find any video game related magazines, but I did find a poo poo-load of gun magazines.



These would be funny if they weren't dead serious.

Castle Doctrine Law Clarified

ADDICTED TO POWER

The entire cover of the Personal & Home Defense magazine is almost too rediculous to be real. Lifesaving Shooting Drills! Close Quarter Fighting! Blunt-Force Alternatives! Doomsday Survival! I picture the guy buying this magazine as the one who can't wait to legally kill a burglar or trespasser.

loading... posted:

Oh hey I saw all of those and this one as well, which my friends and I were cracking up at:



are troops sighed as they drew their katanas.

quote:

MADDOW: Senator Murphy, let me turn to you for a moment. You
represented Newtown as Newtown`s congressman. Now, as senator you
represent the entire state of Connecticut as their senator -- Connecticut
is a small state, but it is a diverse state. It is both diverse in terms
of urban and rural areas. It`s diverse in terms of its population, and in
terms of its political views.
How do you talk to your constituents who feel very strongly about gun
rights and very wary about gun control, that this isn`t going to be
something that`s going to hurt their freedoms, it`s going to help them and
help their fellow citizens?

MURPHY: Listen, every decision you that make on legislation is a
balancing act. And on this one, the test is pretty clear. Do you want to
pass a law that`s going to keep more 6 and 7-year-old kids alive in the
future, or do you want to add some convenience to gun owners who want to
reload a little bit less frequently or want to pretend that they`re
soldiers by owning military-style assault weapons? When you pose that
question to people in Connecticut and frankly across this country as you`ve
shown by the surveys you that talked about earlier, people side with the 6
and 7-year-olds every single time.

800peepee51doodoo posted:

I don't get it, are you actually arguing that people shouldn't wear helmets? Like, that its dumb panicky baby stuff to wear a helmet?

Gonzo McFee posted:

Naye True Scotsman would use a gun.



Seriously, you'd probably be shamed for bringing one instead of getting a gently caress off great machete.

Vermain posted:

The Highland Charge was a highly effective Scottish tactic that used a combination of firearms and a sword/targe. The tactic was mostly limited to the times, though; the bayonets at the time were ringed bayonets, which required your average soldier to somehow slide this thing on while a furious war-party of Highlanders are running towards you, swords at the ready, screaming Gaelic at the top of their lungs. Once fixed bayonets became a thing, it reverted to a mostly psychological tactic, intended to break an enemy line.

steinrokkan posted:

PJ Harvey attacks David Cameron, is cut off by the host (Andrew Marr). Everyone misses the point of her album.

zoux posted:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00048.1

Rhandhali posted:

Exactly. Best estimates are that maybe 160 people a year are "saved" by helmet laws. In the meantime that's hundreds of thousands of people not on bikes and in their cars.


It's almost like there are other things that make cycling dangerous that have nothing at all to do with helmets! Imagine that. Also, when you require kids to wear bike helmets guess what happens? They stop cycling. They then become adults who don't cycle and consider the bicycle as a children's toy and not a real method of transportation, perpetuating the cycle,

Wear a helmet if you want. That little bit of styrofoam might do good but nowhere ear as much good as getting more cyclists on the road; helmet laws actively make cycling more dangerous by decreasing ridership.


12 deaths in five years. Truly an epidemic.

Rhandhali posted:

A bunch of stupid, unsourced horseshit