POLL - Should Helmet Threads Be Banned? - Warning: May Not Contain Poll.

Lusk Doyle · 15-10-2012 12:49PM #1

:pac:

buffalo · 15-10-2012 12:56PM

POLL - should Lusk Doyle be banned? :pac:

Lumen · 15-10-2012 12:59PM

I propose that all polls must contain polls.

Mycroft H · 15-10-2012 12:59PM

* except on a friday.

buffalo · 15-10-2012 01:02PM

Lumen wrote: »

I propose that all polls must contain polls.

Can we vote on that?

07Lapierre · 15-10-2012 01:09PM

Not banned, just "Capped"

Lusk Doyle · 15-10-2012 01:19PM

buffalo wrote: »

POLL - should Lusk Doyle be banned? :pac:

MOD VOICE: Don't be such a j**K!?! :pac:

Also, attack the post, not the poster!

Lusk Doyle · 15-10-2012 01:20PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Not banned, just "Capped"

Hah! I hope that you are ready for another year of secretarial duties :eek:

kuro_man · 15-10-2012 01:23PM

How about 1 helmet thread (sticky?) - no other helmet threads allowed.

Hungrycol · 15-10-2012 01:30PM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

MOD VOICE: Don't be such a j**K!?! :pac:

Also, attack the post, not the poster!

Backseat Modding....

Mob/pitchforks: Ban ban ban ban ban ban

Lusk Doyle · 15-10-2012 01:37PM

Hungrycol wrote: »

Backseat Modding....

Mob/pitchforks: Ban ban ban ban ban ban

Be sure to wear helmets while out angry-mobing!

el tel · 15-10-2012 01:42PM

Not before I start a thread about the possible safety benefits of helmets having particular colours or colour schemes. I think it's an important topic that requires doing to death.

Jawgap · 15-10-2012 01:45PM

There is absolutely no proof that making helmet threads compulsory improves the safety of cyclists.

The evidence that the compulsory abolition of such threads would somehow improve the level of discourse in the forum is questionable at best and fundamentally flawed at worst. Compulsory abolition has been shown (in Australia) to discourage participation in forum discussions - Trinity College Dublin are working on a comparable study for Ireland.

I, for one, object to the Lusk 'Nanny State' Doyle intervening to tell us what we can and can't discuss in respect of cycling

Hermy · 15-10-2012 01:45PM

How will people know about the dangers of helmet threads if we ban them?

Beasty · 15-10-2012 01:54PM

kuro_man wrote: »

How about 1 helmet thread (sticky?) - no other helmet threads allowed.

We're already at our sticky quota

We could have a helmet mega-thread, linked from the FAQs, but that means we would have to start a new one to make sure we have all the angles covered :pac:

One of the other mods says helmet threads does his head in - my stock response is he should wear appropriate protection ...

Lusk Doyle · 15-10-2012 01:55PM

Jawgap wrote: »

There is absolutely no proof that making helmet threads compulsory improves the safety of cyclists.

The evidence that the compulsory abolition of such threads would somehow improve the level of discourse in the forum is questionable at best and fundamentally flawed at worst. Compulsory abolition has been shown (in Australia) to discourage participation in forum discussions - Trinity College Dublin are working on a comparable study for Ireland.

I, for one, object to the Lusk 'Nanny State' Doyle intervening to tell us what we can and can't discuss in respect of cycling

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to object to your recent tirade of abuse following my perfectly reasonable blah blah blah.

At no point did I advocate my "intervening to tell us what we can and can't discuss in respect of cycling" Quote. Un-quote!

Further, helmets are things of fashion and have been demonstrated ad nauseum to NOT have anything to do with cycling. 43% of all cyclists know that. 21% of them jump red lights.

doozerie · 15-10-2012 02:01PM

Yes, helmet threads should be banned. Threads dangling from helmets could trip someone up and cause them to bump their head, they are tantamount to murder.

Threaded helmets, on the other hand, would be great. Apply some threadlock, screw the helmet onto the head, and voila... a person who is permanently protected from all the dangers that life can throw at them. Using the tap (or die) on the person's head first is not without its dangers, but those are clearly outweighed by the benefits.

Korvanica · 15-10-2012 02:05PM

POLL - Should a Poll be added to this thread ?

Beasty · 15-10-2012 02:21PM

Korvanica wrote: »

POLL - Should a Poll be added to this thread ?

No for 2 reasons - Firstly I don't think Lusk Doyle has a clue as to how to add one. Secondly we have absolutely no intention of following the result if it doesn't suit us - not having a vote means we should be able to gloss over the whole issue if necessary;)

Jawgap · 15-10-2012 02:22PM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to object to your recent tirade of abuse following my perfectly reasonable blah blah blah.

At no point did I advocate my "intervening to tell us what we can and can't discuss in respect of cycling" Quote. Un-quote!

Further, helmets are things of fashion and have been demonstrated ad nauseum to NOT have anything to do with cycling. 43% of all cyclists know that. 21% of them jump red lights.

I call troll on Lusk Doyle

- bringing up this subject is just another example of cycling's arrivistas trying to stymie the debate around true cycling issues of concern.

Cycling helmets are incredibly valuable at protecting cyclists from
(a) Gay Byrne
(b) Ill-informed Guards worried about what the sargent will say if they don't nick someone for something on a bike
(c) Mammies, Daddies, wives and girlfriends who remain convinced that leaving the house without a helmet means that you will be a drooling vegetable in Beaumont next time they see you
(d) Noel Brett
(e) The AH Forum

Helmets are incredibly important - how else would you carry your sunglasses, energy bars, gloves, Garmin and lights from the bike into the coffee shop?

Jawgap · 15-10-2012 02:22PM

Korvanica wrote: »

POLL - Should a Poll be added to this thread ?

Adding a Pole would make more sense:D

check_six · 15-10-2012 02:23PM

Helmet Thread trajectory
- spark - Media commentator, or non-cycling boards poster suggests making helmets compulsory.
- someone who has fallen off their bike claims that their polystyrene hat saved their life and endorses compulsion
- someone claims that compulsion is a bad thing for cycling numbers
- someone claims that compulsion makes sense because no one wants to smash their head off the ground
- many people say they wear helmets, but are against compulsion
- Science! Tomasrojo, or Monument, or one of those fellas who can remember things from literally *weeks* ago dig out all the links to studies and reports on number of accidents, types of accidents, and protective benefits of helmets in those accidents.
- Won't someone think of the children?! Compulsion for younger cyclists is endorsed.
- Won't someone think of the children?! (part 2) Horrific stories of kids getting choked by their helmet straps or having necks twisted in falls are rolled out.
- Someone who hasn't read the rest of the thread (or any of the cycling forum) mentions (whisper it) H*-V** for the first time.
- Chaos erupts temporarily
- Someone suggest that helmets should be made compulsory, again.

-Around this time the circle becomes complete as the same arguments have to be re-treaded.

I think that covers most of the points, maybe we should flesh this out a bit and have a rolling fake thread on the first page. People can go in and view it and think they are adding new posts but it's just the same animated gif rolling over and over and over...

Lusk Doyle · 15-10-2012 02:23PM

Beasty wrote: »

No for 2 reasons - Firstly I don't think Lusk Doyle has a clue as to how to add one. Secondly we have absolutely no intention of following the result if it doesn't suit us - not having a vote means we should be able to gloss over the whole issue if necessary;)

I was being sarcastic in my OP :rolleyes:

Jawgap · 15-10-2012 02:28PM

@checksix - you forgot to add the bits where a mod goes a bit medieval and dishes out a few infractions / bans

Beasty · 15-10-2012 02:31PM

Jawgap wrote: »

@checksix - you forgot to add the bits where a mod goes a bit medieval and dishes out a few infractions / bans

shush will ya!!!

Lusk Doyle · 15-10-2012 02:39PM

I've edited the title for "clarity".

buffalo · 15-10-2012 02:41PM

el tel wrote: »

it's an important topic that requires doing to death.

Sounds like we should be wearing helmets so!

Lumen · 15-10-2012 02:43PM

This thread brings to mind those "Peanuts. Warning: May Contain Nuts" labels.

Except it's more like "Peanuts: Warning: does not contain nuts".

But as every internet pedant knows, peanuts are not actually nuts.

Frankly, the implications of this are beyond me.

Lusk Doyle · 15-10-2012 02:50PM

I think it's time for somebody to please think of the children!!!

Close the damn thread!

Beasty · 15-10-2012 02:54PM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

I've edited the title for "clarity".

Took the "easy" option there I see Lusk Doyle

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Close the damn thread!

Not a cat in hell's chance - you got yourself into this...

07Lapierre · 15-10-2012 02:55PM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

I think it's time for somebody to please think of the children!!!

They should ALWAYS wear Helmets!

POLL - Should Helmet Threads Be Banned? - Warning: May Not Contain Poll.

Comments