Friday, March 27, 2015

BSNYC Friday No Quiz Just Tedious Editorializing!

My Fellow Cyclists:

There is a creak in our metaphorical bottom bracket, and if we don't address it now it's only a matter of time before we squash our genitals on the Top Tube of Catastrophic Failure.

So what is this creaking?  Well, a California senator has introduced a bill for a mandatory bicycle helment law, and our beloved cycling media--which should be standing united against such nonsense in the interest of cyclists everywhere--is instead entertaining it, and in at least one case actually supporting it.

Now I don't care what your feelings on helment use are.  Maybe you're one of those people who thinks not wearing a bicycle helment is tantamount to suicide.  Maybe you're one of those people who refuses to wear one under any circumstances because they mess up your hair.  Or maybe you're like me and don't care much about your hair because you're losing it anyway, so you wear a helment when you're riding a go-fast bike in a special outfit but you don't bother when you're noodling around town in street clothes.

And don't tell me which one you are, because honestly I don't give a shit.

The point is that I have no problem with helments, but if you support a mandatory bicycle helment law then you are anti-cycling.  There, I said it.  You're a traitor.  A heretic.  Give up your bike and go lease a Hyundai, because you are playing right into the hands of your oppressors.  See, the Automotive Industrial Complex and their various lackeys need helment laws, and the last thing any self-respecting cyclist should do is help them.  Here's why:

They need everything to be your problem.

Really, we're practically there already, which is why you'll routinely read newspaper articles that say things like, "The cyclist's legs were crushed when the unlicensed operator lost control of his steamroller.  The victim was not wearing a helment."  So what if it's an irrelevant detail?  In America today, no helment = menace to society.

America may not be number one anymore when it comes to education, or health care, or overall quality of life, but you're goddamn right we lead the world in victim-blaming.  There's not anyplace else on the planet where people are more gleeful when the strong get one over on the weak.  If you don't understand this now, you certainly will when a driver hits you and you discover the entire system is built around shielding him or her from accountability.  You can thank the auto companies and AAA for that, among others.  (Do yourself a favor and read about the history of "jaywalking," a concept the auto industry more or less invented.  As for AAA, they're fighting against red light cameras not far from me even as I type this, on the basis that stopping for red lights causes rear-end collisions.)

Mandatory bicycle helment laws are just one more way of shifting responsibility away from the driver and onto you.  When I was hit from behind by a motorist who then lied to police about what happened, all her insurance company wanted to know was whether or not I was wearing a helment, even though my balding pate was completely unscathed.

Then, once the Automotive Industrial Complex has shifted all the blame onto you they can take it a step further and make it public policy. "Cycle tracks and so forth make cyclists safer and encourage more people to ride?  So what?  Make 'em wear plastic bumpers on their heads and be done with it."

Congratulations.  You're now a car fender.

If all of this is too complicated, let me explain your future in four (4) simple steps:
Yep, that's how it's all gonna go down.  It may sound crazy now, but 100 years ago nobody would have believed you could get arrested for crossing the street either.



So it would be nice to think that the cycling world would dismiss mandatory helment laws out-of-hand and stand united against them.  Sadly, they're not.  First, I saw this on the "Bicycling" website yesterday:


I realize this is supposed to be an objective point-counterpoint type thing, but why should we even entertain this "debate" in the first place?  What is this compulsion in American society to entertain dumb ideas?  It's like when we pretend creationism is a legitimate worldview so we don't offend the religious kooks.  (I realize "religious kooks" is redundant.)  Hey, I know the helme(n)t deba(n)te makes good clickbait, but some of these ideas are downright toxic:

During the summer of 2014, while riding on a road closed to auto traffic, I survived a collision with another cyclist, only because I was wearing a helmet. Without a helmet, the front of my head would have hit the ground at 28mph, unprotected.

Just several months before my crash, a car that ran a stop sign struck one of my friends while she was riding her bike. She had massive facial trauma, and continues to suffer long-term effects from going through the automobile’s windshield. She “coded” while on the helicopter ride to the hospital. The only reason she is around today: A helmet saved her life.

Okay.  Firstly, I'm glad everybody's alive and all that.  But...but...you were both wearing helments!!!  So why does it follow that we need a law?  By all means, wear a helment when you're cycling for "sport."  Granted, I don't know about the friend who got hit at the stop sign, but I'm going to guess that someone who works for "Bicycling" and is riding on a closed road at 28mph was not on a townie bike picking up radishes from the greenmarket.  Yet because he crashed while engaged in high-speed cycling someone who's cruising around in a sundress should have to wear safety gear as well?  Come on.

Comparing cycling to other recreational pursuits, we see that football players—at all levels—wear helmets to lessen the risk of brain injury. 

Leave it to someone at "Bicycling" to reduce cycling entirely to a recreational pursuit.  The sporting component of cycling is a small one, and USA Cycling makes you wear a helment when you compete anyway.  And holy shit, football?!?  The sport of football is based on people slamming into each other on purpose!  How is riding your bike around town even remotely like football--or any of these other sports?

This is also the case for baseball, hockey, horseback riding, and virtually every other sport that may involve some risk of personal injury.

You gotta be kidding me.  I'm pretty sure baseball players only wear helments when people are throwing 100mph fastballs directly at them.  As for hockey, it's fucking hockey!!!  I do give him bonus points for working equestrianism into the argument though.  Sure, if my bike weighed a thousand pounds and had four steel-shod hooves and a mind of its own I'd make sure to wear a helment too.  But the amount of times my bicycle got scared by one of its own farts and threw me is exactly zero.

Anyway, everybody knows "cycling is the new golf," so why not just compare it to that?  Do golfers wear helments when they're out on the links or zipping between holes in their golf carts?  I don't think so.

And here's where the argument gets really dangerous:

The next logical step would be for insurance companies to deny claims for those involved in a bicycling accident while not wearing a helmet. This could be avoided by mandating helmet use, saving both legal fees and lives.

So wait.  You actually want insurance companies to deny claims for victims because they weren't wearing helments?

Holy fuck that's cold.

Anyway, reading this in "Bicycling" was bad enough, but then someone tweeted this post from the Red Kite Prayer blog at me:


Bike advocate groups might consider what others see when they see us. They see people who run stop signs, weave in and out of traffic, ride in packs, take up a lane, and so on. It’s not a pretty picture. Sure, most of us are wearing helmets as we bend rules and traffic laws, but that’s not what the pissed off drivers see. So when they hear cyclists are opposed to a helmet law, it only furthers their belief that we are selfish, unpredictable and dangerous.

Maybe we let this one go. Let the lawmakers and drivers have this one without resistance. We got our 3-foot law in California, we can put up with a helmet law on the books. Pick you battles as they say. This is one fight we can easily walk away from.

Wow.  "Let this one go?"  Leave it to the Freds to sell the rest of us out.  Sure, they've got nothing at stake, since the helments already go with their outfits.  Essentially what he's saying is that because people get irritated by the local crabon weenie group ride every person who rides a bike for any reason should cop to the Foam Hat of Shame as some sort of penance or polystyrene bargaining chip.  

I swear these goddamn Freds will ruin cycling forever if you let them.



Make of that what you will.

So go ahead, call me irresponsible.  Tell your "My helment saved my life" stories.  Bow to the people who say you're statistically insignificant and don't deserve bike infrastructure, yet somehow vast numbers of brain-injured cyclists are destroying the American economy.  Let them pass a bicycle helment law to appease the non-cyclists who find us annoying.  (Yeah, I mentioned appeasement.  DON'T MAKE ME GO GODWIN!!!)  

Just don't come crying to me in 20 years when you need a license and registration to operate a bicycle, and you're wearing a giant Dayglo bodysuit with illumination circuitry, one of those "smart hats," and a GPS beacon up your ass so you don't get hit by an Apple car.

In fact, you won't be able to come crying to me, because I'll have emigrated to the Netherlands, where they'll have granted me political asylum.

The rest of you can enjoy your dystopian Australian future:



Heroes and football players.

They never ask why.

226 comments:

1 – 200 of 226   Newer›   Newest»
Mike O. said...

Bingo

wishiwasmerckx said...

PODIODIUM!

Anonymous said...

3

JLRB said...

top tetanus

Anonymous said...

No way

Spence said...

THANK YOU! Exactly my sentiments! It's manipulating people to not use a bicycle by making it inconvenient. BINGO!

Bodhi said...

Top ten. I was busy reading about Lebowitz. What a moron.

Anonymous said...

viii

Freddy Murcks said...

Your message would have been better received if you could have somehow integrated Stalker Julia's boobs into it.

Anonymous said...

Top ten! I can see the scrodium from here.

Anonymous said...

top 11

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, in a majority of states you don't have to wear a helmet to ride a MOTORCYCLE.

Anonymous said...

A bit alarmist I think.

Have mandatory seat belts led to a dystopian future? (I mean that would be about now)

Coming up with those helment law is silly but getting your knickers in a twist seems almost as silly.

Logan Johns said...

Well said WRM! Enjoyed your rant today.

Grump said...

I'm all for mandatory helmet laws because:

1) It will keep the Hoi Polloi off the roads.
2) I always wear that "special outfit"
3) I'm a jerk.

Anonymous said...

Just need to advocate that the law be changed so that gun owners also have to wear helments when they are practicing. Then America will suddenly remember that it's made of freedom and reject it hastily.

Anonymous said...

Self-respecting cyclist? Oxymoron.

cycle

BikeSnobNYC said...

Anonymous 1:03pm,

My outrage is (slightly) hyperbolized. However, comparing cars/seatbelts and bicycles/helements is ridiculous.

And yes, we sort of are living in a dystopian present as far as drivers having a license to kill. Open your eyes.

--Wildcat Rock Machine

Freddy Murcks said...

Kidding aside. I like helmets. They have saved the contents of my skull from serious injury on several occasions. I mostly mountain bike, so I think wearing a foam hat is a basically good idea due to the fact that you never know when you are going to eat shit. If you're a roadie, wearing a foam hat is also a good idea because you never know when some a-hole driver or a giant pothole is going to send you over the bars. I have crashed hard enough on both the trail and the road to crack my helmet. I was glad it wasn't my skull and I was glad that I was able to ride away. Also, most crashes are stupid and the worst ones seem to happen when you least expect it.

Nonetheless, I don't think wearing a helmet should be mandatory. However, as a matter of personal choice, if you don't think that protecting the contents of your skull is a good idea, it may be that there is nothing in your skull worth protecting.

The Voice of Reason said...

Good one Snob!

One of your best ever.

Fred Mercury said...

I'm surprised California doesn't have a helment law already. I expect it to happen and expect New York to follow. I think you, Mr. Rock Machine, may reluctantly become a spokesman or advocate, whatever you wish to call it, for cycling and common sense. You are one of the more erudite and eloquent bloggers out there and you call bullshit when you smell it.
Bicycling magazine did offer me a valuable pointer once on how to drink from a water bottle while riding. Before that, I fell every time I tried taking a drink.
Keep fighting the good fight.

Cipo said...

I always wear the 'miniature Cipo' helment when coupulating with le donne. This saves 'the Cipo' vast amounts of Euros in future bambino support payments.

Barney 'Conspiracy Theorist' Frederickson said...

Do tin foil helments count?

Anonymous said...

fredkiteprayer is more suitable a name

Shawn said...

Thanks snob!

bad boy of the north said...

And i was looking soooooo forward to moving to cali.scratch another reason not to.....first 30.

Anonymous said...

Completely agree with you, and it is disheartening the cycling press is equivocating, but in my experience, state legislators are not susceptible to logic, doubly so for anything involving bicycles. Just hope they lose interest in this while fighting about some other existential threat to California.

DB said...

Well done, Sir.

Larry and Heather said...

Larry says: It should be no surprise the $hill of Cycling and Buycycling are all for helment laws. They exist to shamelessly promote BUYING ever more crap, otherwise who will buy their advertising? I laugh at the "I was saved by my helment" crowd. Did they have the exact same crash without one and die - otherwise how could they know the helment saved them? People who drive cars with convertible tops need helments more than cyclists!!

recumbent conspiracy theorist said...

Yeah I live in one of those states where the motorbikers can choose helment or not. One of my bikes with a motor I even ride without a helment when just putting around town.

But I believe the idiocy will slowly creep in here from the outsides just like fads and styles and such always do.

Anonymous said...

Kagan is such a fucking idiot that I am amazed he can describe himself as literate with the tripe he wrote justifying helment laws.

K-Bo said...

Derisive issues
I need some tissues
Tell me to wear a helment
I'll f****ng kill you!

JB said...

I agree, and I (almost) always wear a helment.

There's a beautiful Godzilla in image 2.

I used to own the same Oakley sunglasses that the blonde babe is wearing in the Aussie vid. Not sure if that's good or bad.

Anonymous said...

Ever wonder why Australia has mandatory helment laws for cyclists, yet players in their national sport, Australian Rules Football, are helment-less?

Will they just make cycling illegal, already? Maybe then I can get back some of that fixie-rebelliousness from the early 2000s.

No helment. No brakes. No stopping. Break all the rules!

Dudely said...

They say "Follow the money", so the ad under the article is for Bell Helment Company. They're the one that started the entire notion that you need one in the first place with their fraudulent "study" they paid for.

http://crag.asn.au/1121

P. Bateman said...

Snobbers - you are kicking ass today. fine work sir.

wishiwasmerckx said...

I am conflicted about helmets.

I am an enormous supporter of mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists.

I am firmly in the "only an idiot rides without a helmet" camp for cyclists.

I am in the "you gotta be shitting me" camp for skiers.

On an unrelated note, it is not yet lunchtime here on the left coast, and I had to choose the steak photos as my captcha. Now I'm STARVING.

Steely Danzig said...

I can't remember the name of the character from "Repo Man" who said, "The more you drive, the less intelligent you are." The problem is that these people are dumb fucking kunts to begin with, and they drive a lot. Dan Rather said it best, "Americans will put up with anything as long as it doesn't block traffic."

two wheeled tortoise said...

Football player's scrambled brains seem to show helmets are simply ineffective in preventing the most common type of brain injury, concussion.

youcancallmeAl said...

Yeah,deny them insurance claims. It will lower my premiums.

BikeSnobNYC said...

youcancallmeAl,

Oh sure it will. Insurance companies are always looking for reasons to lower premiums.

Dupe.

--Wildcat Rock Machine

Name said...

All I can remember from the post is the shinning vagina.

wishiwasmerckx said...

Anon 12:51, those Freakonomics guys specialize in the law of unintended consequences. They argue that American football was actually much safer in the "no helmet" and "leather helmet" days because players were more cautious about leading with their head and helmet-to-helmet contact. Then football helmet was supposed to make the player safer; in reality it had the opposite effect.

Speaking of Freakonomics, here is their take on mandatory helmet laws:

http://freakonomics.com/2010/01/19/do-bike-helmet-laws-discourage-bicycling/

PotbellyJoe said...

I wear a helment when i ride sportingly, or off-roadingly. My brother crashed hard when we rode sportingly and he probably is alive because of it. I can't say for certain we didn't replicate the crash without a helment, so scientifically there is no proof.

Hanyways, what these laws do, especially in California, is give the police a visible reason to open any riders to harassment. This will be used to pull over the unsavories and when they step out of line, the cops can search them, or arrest them for resisting their fauxthority.

It's BS.

Next they'll put a rule in the books that they will check the expiration date inside the helmet giving the police reasonable cause to pull over any bicyclist and force them to submit to a search.

"It's in your best interest." They'll say. "We want you to be safe."

wishiwasmerckx said...

YoucancallmeAl, insurance companies already deny all the claims.

Make a fraudulent insurance claim and you go to jail. Fraudulently deny a legitimate claim and not only do you not go to jail, you get a bonus.

We never give a second thought about an entire industry whose business model depends on robbing widows and orphans of their due.

McFly said...

Oh man I got dressed down by a lady USAC official at a race for noodling in the parking lot helmentless. A 4 year old on a push bike whizzed by her later and I asked her to get on his case like she did mine in front of the entire field and she ignored me.

Basic Economics said...

"Yeah,deny them insurance claims. It will lower my premiums."

Every business in the United States charges the highest amount people are willing to pay. And they all work to continuously reduce their costs.

No repeat no business reduces what they charge because they successfully reduce costs.

Anonymous said...

The proposed helmet law is even worse that what Snob wrote. It also requires wearing ANSI standard 2 reflective clothing at night - Basically, look like a highway worker. Practically none of your existing gear meets the standard. 3M, maker of reflective tape, wins, too.

Anonymous said...

Wow, thanks, I don't wear helmets skiing or riding......and I'm so tired of hearing from the Fred's where's your helmet as they blow through red lights.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the facts and opinions snob. I did not realize the extent of the corporate manipulation of my driving, cycling and pedestrian(ing) world.

babble on said...

Snobums @ 1:07 Hear. Hear. In fact, I am with you all the way today, from start to final full stop.

You already know that the only reason I wear a lid is cause I am a Crash Test Dummy who is always going as fast as her little legs will take her. But honestly: mandatory lids is NOT ok. This Capitalism in Decay world full of brainwashed motorist fools will do anything to discourage us from finding a better, two wheeled way. Their sacred profits depend upon it.

It's too late, doll. Goodwin has arrived, and for good reason.

Much love. Safe cycling, all. :)

Anonymous said...

In the dystopian future your B17 will come standard with a seat belt. But really where do you stop? Fully enclosed, recumbent quad-cycle: helmet required?

Glory said...

Confusion clarification: the Freakonomics piece states CA has a helment law already; that law is only for minors (yoots in Jersey).

That was tedious, Snob, in that it brought the tedium of the world before my nose again on a day I've spent trying to find something more uplifting than suicidal pilots, steady rain, and health-insurance hold music. Guess I'll go ride my bike in the rain, and enjoy the fleeting freedom of deciding whether to wear a helment without the input of Big Brother.

Anonymous said...

Some Rodeo Cowboys wear helments.

Rodeo is a hazardous activity with 6-foor falls and hoof-kicks.

Many choose not to wear them.

dop said...

WRM-

This isn't the first time you've discussed this & I understand you're sincere, but I really wanted me some quiz. Funny Pictures. Goofy vids. Bad puns. Ritualistic Triguy bashing. Bonus videos. I guess that German pilot guy knew their wasn't a quiz today & had to end it all.

dop said...

there

babble on said...

If we get all scientific on thier asses, the most important place to implement a mandatory helmet law is in CARS. You are more likely to sustain a significant head injury in a car than anywhere else. The real drain on our healthcare system is car accidents. Seriously. 50% of head injuries happen in motor vehicle collisions. Cycling is just a tiny fraction of the other half. (And don't let's even begin talking about subsidies to motorists when it comes to infrastructure and the oil and gas industry, and the real cost of the motoring way of life.)

Methysticum said...

Someone make a helmet riff of this video. Actually, I think this video is about helmets. Or maybe just bike porn. https://youtu.be/gm0lTJgopug

the Jimboner said...

I work on a 1000 acre cattle ranch with miles of trails and dirt roads. Sometimes I will ride my bike, a horse, a motorcycle and my old lady all in the same day. As for wearing helments...

Bike - on single track or when touring

Horse - won't fit under or over the cowboy hat

Motorcycle - on the nasty trails or when off the farm

Old Lady - only the special latex one with the feeding tube

Anonymous said...

If this was a senator from California trying to pass a law for the entire country, that would seem more a problem than someone who wants to pass a law for California.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/helmets.htm Washington state does not have a mandatory helmet law for the entire state, but virtually all the WA jurisdictions with any urban population do have helmet laws, per the list from the WA state dept of transportation. Does this west coast foolishness really have implications for sensible people in the east?

selfish, unpredictable and dangerous said...

selfish, unpredictable and dangerous.

JLRB said...

Does this west coast foolishness really have implications for sensible people in the east?

Yes. bad laws spread like cankers. legislators have no imagination so they copy bad laws from others, especially when special interest groups tell them why they should, and hand their PAC bags of money

Angry Dan said...

My grandma slipped in the shower and broke her hip. I felt bad for her until I found out she wasn't wearing a helment. So irresponsible!

religious kook said...

I'm disappointed that you didn't make the case that riding without a helment advances the cause of evolution.

How it works is this. If you get killed while riding a bike, your are out of the gene pool, and you can't reproduce. Once you have kids that survive to reproductive age, then it's o.k. because they'll pass on your genetic material.

If however, your kids aren't wearing helments and die, then they can't pass on the genes, so its important to make sure they wear helments.

BTW snob, do you put your kids in a car seat for any other reason than you'll get jailed if you don't?

But, not wearing helments is best, because it increases the probability that the unfit members of a population will not reproduce, such as those that live in dangerous cities that don't prosecute homicidal drivers, or weave in and out of dangerous traffic.

I feel fully qualified to mention this because I survived, so far, many years of bike riding without a helment and my childhood years as a car passenger who never rode in a car seat.

Of course, I depend on divine intervention to keep me safe, plus a little good judgement, and a helment when good judgement fails, as it has a few times.

As a survivor of many years of

Anonymous said...

Holy carp! We've got to take action!!

Should I:
Write my congressman? (that'll work)

donate to The league of American Cyclists (it might be their first)

Call my mommy? (she'll tell me to rub some dirt on it & quit crying)

seriously, all this build up and left hanging on the call to action.

No Joy.

Name said...

religious kook,

you are one.

Flyover BC said...

The reason Bicycling supports helment laws is because it'll support their advertisers who sell helemnts and buy advertising.

Name said...

Maybe those alluding to seat bels and child car seats forget that bicycles are not motor vehicles and do not cruise around at 50-60 mi/h regularly.

BikeSnobNYC said...

Anonous 2:32pm,

I'm fine with people just flaming the cycling writers so willing to sell us out.

--Wildcat Rock Machine

FR8 said...

I'm slow enough already, I don't need a helmet giving me extra drag.

Remember, most Freds are car drivers playing at cyclist on the weekends.

Serial Retrogrouch said...

...how is it that you make such a concise point... and the commenteratti inevitably go into: helments saved my life too, so it's all good for everyone else.

...seriously, it's pretty simple, you wanna wear one, wear one... but don't support mandatory asinine foamwearing.

Serial Retrogrouch said...

...sir snob, a fine piece of writing and invective... but, it's missing that one last 'mercan thing: what should those of us who want to do something do?

General Mills said...

We have available a limited number of G. W. Bu$h autographed depleted uranium crabon bicycling helments. They were meant to be worn at the Bu$h Ranchreo in Texas but that video was never shot. So now they are available to you, the general pubic. This model helment is also worn by the Secret Service and Secretary of State John Carry in his numerous "Hey look at me I'm an everyday common bike douche' just like you. These helments proudly feature the American Eagle with terrorists entwined in its talons and when contact with the earth is made they play 'Wall Street uber alles.'

wishiwasmerckx said...

Speaking of Godwin's law, these Germans really are adept at this mass murder thing, aren't they? Have a real flair for it, it seems.

Anonymous said...

Wearing a helmet in the shower would absolutely reduce your risk of injury of slipping and falling in the shower. Would it reduce your risk of actually slipping and falling no. So we should all wear helmets in the shower. In fact never leaving your couch would also reduce your risk of injury, so why the fuck ever leave your house? I guarantee that the assholes who are pushing hardest for the mandatory helmet laws are non-cyclists.

grog said...

Let freedom ring. Land of Liberty.
Of thee I sing. I choose my destiny.
RIDE NICE
MORE BABE

Anonymous said...

General Mills, it is John Kerry, otherwise you seem very intelligent.

PotbellyJoe said...

Thankfully there is a great platform to hold arguments. Twitter. So here are the culprits:

@_gregkaplan_
@BicyclingMag
(I'm sure we could add @TrueBS and his astounding number of hats to this list)

@michaelhotten
@RedKitePrayer

Anonymous said...

Have been bike commuting in NYC regularly for the past 20 years. Never wear a helmet. I've been hit by a car, door'd a couple times, run off the road by overjealous food delivery guys on electric bikes, etc. Broken ribs, road rash, bruises, stiches but the head is still fine. the mandatory helmet laws proponents can suck my helmet.

Anonymous said...

wow, Red Kite Prayer, what a fucking bunch of douchbags. I love this line: "Maybe for the enthusiast it’s just obvious. Maybe because we do things that others simply can’t, we see no other option. We dive for corners, sprint for city limits, aggressively descend a local mountain."

They can't possibly be serious?

Anonymous said...

Excellent piece Snob.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:03:

Pre-world war II Germany:

wearing this yellow badge is no big deal, don't get your knickers in a twist.

Anonymous said...

Great post. I did emigrate. Nary a helmeted commuter to be seen anywhere here in Germany.

Why do Americans entertain such stupid ideas? Because the culture breeds stupidity?

ken e. said...

zoinks! the big three killed my baby.

STPD HLMT
VCTM BLMR
FIRE POST

McFly said...

I never make my Memaw buclke up in the Hemi. I'm just like "You're 90.....fuck it...

Confused comme'tater said...

Please clarify who is behind the push (bohica) for new helment laws.

Is it:

1. the left-wing nanny state;

2. the profit maximizing insurance companies;

3. the market share increasing helment companies; or,

4. the "just lay back and enjoy it and maybe you won't get hurt worse" bicycle journalists?

Anonymous said...

Geez, snob, are you sure you never suffered a traumatic brain injury? I mean, maybe you did and you just... ya' know...

Was it Heinlein who said something to the effect of: "In the future, everything that isn't prohibited will be mandatory." If not, he should have said that.

Now drink the Kool-Aid and everything will be aaalllll better...

Anonymous said...

"wow, Red Kite Prayer, what a fucking bunch of douchbags. I love this line: "Maybe for the enthusiast it’s just obvious. Maybe because we do things that others simply can’t, we see no other option. We dive for corners, sprint for city limits, aggressively descend a local mountain."

They can't possibly be serious?"
--------------------------------------

Why not? I have no doubt that someone on that site could write something so cringeworthy. It is Fred heaven.

Flyover BC said...

O.K.

"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are" may be a correlation but does not imply causation, unless you are talking about pro truck drivers, and then it should be the other way around.

The less intelligent you are, the more you drive".

O.K. maybe taxi drivers should be included.

Two Nips Please said...

Surely Recumbabe has something to say about all of this. And without the Maple Leafs if you please.

Anonymous said...

Here's why comparing helmet & seatbelt laws is bullshit:

If a seatbelt law discouraged driving, that would be good.

Less pollution. Less obesity, heart disease, etc. Less congestion. The list goes on.

Not getting exercise and cars are the #1 and #2 causes of premature death. Cycling solves both these problems and anything that discourages people from biking will hurt public health.

tl;dr: Helmet laws kill people by congestive heart failure and diabeetus

TelevisionWriter said...

Mandatory bicycle helment laws are just one more way of shifting responsibility away from the driver and onto you.

Correct. This is the intention of the new law in Cali.

The second argument for helments is a public health one. Helments don't always help. Whey they do work it measurably lowers public health costs.

Bring some street speeds down for drivers, clarify the rules regarding a cyclist's right to take a lane **and keep it** and then demand cyclists wear helments because increased access means many more bikeen riders. I'm okay with that.

That's not what the current legislation is.

1904 Cadardi said...

Went on a lunch in stretchy clothes and clicky shoes. One of my fellow riders forgot his helment but reasoned "I didn't wear one for the first 18 years I rode bikes, one day will probably be okay."

Guess what, he was right. Neither of us died.

TelevisionWriter said...

Helmet laws kill people by congestive heart failure and diabeetus

No they don't. We have a long, long way to go before we get to a place where we can seriously consider multi-use streets safe.

ce said...

Actually, in Australia most football players don't wear helments.

Snobbo, I don't know if you saw the link I put in yesterdays comments, but I believe Jeremy Clarkson could turn out to be the perfect spokesperson for this cause. 1, Motorists love him. 2, He has an opening in his schedule. 3, It seems, he at least occasionally, he gets around by bicycle, helmentless.

Anonymous said...

Potbelly at 1:35, this is exactly what happens in Washington State. In Kent WA a few years ago, cops made contact with someone on the premise that they weren't wearing a helmet. He split. The cops chased. Then the cops tazed him -- while he was riding -- causing him to fall. Too bad he wasn't wearing a helmet, huh?

Brooklyn Junior said...

the perfect crime: Kill someone with your car.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/05/01/the-perfect-crime-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Brooklyn Junior said...

"The doctors tell us that about 25 percent of the trauma patients who come through Bellevue are pedestrians who’ve been struck by cars. Frangos and Wall have written a series of papers on the topic, including “Vulnerable Roadway Users Struck by Motor Vehicles at the Center of the Safest, Largest U.S. City.” So what can be done to keep New York pedestrians from dying? Frangos and Wall propose — only half-jokingly — helmets for everyone:"

bieks said...

Helments or not, we're still going to annoy drivers so we may as well g̶e̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶i̶d̶e̶w̶a̶l̶k̶ lease a Hyundai already.

bieks said...

Hunnert and dint even know it. Woohoo.

101

Schweddy said...

Anon 1:21 - Australian Footballers don't have to wear helments because it's too danged hot to wear them, and Australians like their football. Cyclists, not so much.

Colin Clarke said...

My recent paper, Evaluation of Australia's bicycle helmet laws shows how helmet laws can result in harm.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/au-assessment-2015.pdf

Spencer said...

I am a supporter of common sense. During this last polar cold here in the northeast, I stood a better chance of freezing my noggin than splitting it open. I chose to wear a warm bomber hat as opposed to a helmet.

Anonymous said...

vsk said ...

Helment Laws Suck,
Let Those Who Ride Decide.


Oh crap, I sold my Electra Glide in 1993.
Fucking PotBelly Joe nailed it.
Another reason to get hassled by the Man.

No helmet for me. I am so heavy that another few ounces will pull the frame tubes out of their lug sockets!! (of course you don't know what I'm talking about you're too young! ).

If I have to wear a helment on a bike, I'm carrying a parachute when I fly commercial.

My robot wears one though.

vsk

rudy jenkins said...

You killed today, WRM. I'm with you 100%.

Anonymous said...

Snob, you friggin' killed it today. Loved it. Bravo.

Anonymous said...

Mandatory Helment laws are a direct assault on Bike Share Bikes. Australia will never have a popular bike share program. Mexico had to drop their mandatory laws in order to have a popular Bike Share program. Mandatory helment laws are bad for cycling, nearly fatal for Bike Share Programs. California is finally getting with the Bike Share Program, so this is not a coincidence. Bike Share Bikes are part of the mass transit system, so this is just a strongly pro-private-vehicle law. Probably involved a campaign donation. F. U. LIU !

Anonymous said...

Thanks for speaking for me, WRM.

I think the sport that best compares to cycling is distance running. Lots of people trying to be the first one to get from here to there. And of course in marathons everyone wears a helmet.

crank said...

Hey American pals, from the land of the "free" or whatever. Mandatory helmet laws will totally fucking kill off cycling in your country, and give police yet another reason to harass you for doing something harmless like riding to the market as they further buy into the automotive mindset. Seriously, you will fucking regret it. With love and respect, backward fucking Australians. (who need I remind you, came up with "Mad Max")

Chuckk said...

I don't get why so many bicyclists talk as though all that exists are automobiles and bicycles. There are also humans walking around out there and you are a serious danger to those humans on your bike. I've seen a pedestrian lying motionless, eyes darting around, having been hit in the back by a bicyclist. Well, a former pedestrian. I also had a bicyclist run a red light and slam full-speed into my driver's side window, destroying the left side of my pickup and, believe it or not, walking away unhurt with his bike while I waited for the police. Luckily, he was shaken up enough to give me his contact info without thinking about it before he left.
A seatbelt in a car also prevents the driver from flying out of his seat when he hits a bump and becoming a great danger to all around him. Is it inconceivable that someone else's safety might be a factor? Maybe wearing a helmet doesn't mean less danger to pedestrians, maybe it does, but writing this entire article with no consideration of walking aside from jaywalking shows a pretty one-sided perspective.
I'm personally not impressed with the radish-buying argument. I may buy a Smart Car and drive it slowly, but I still have to wear a seatbelt and stay off the sidewalk. The fact that people have always ridden their bikes to the store without a helmet is not an argument that they shouldn't have to start wearing one.

babble on said...

Cancellara fractured two vertebrae in the E3 Harelebeke. Ouch!!

ArtW said...

Heroes wear condoms.......

BikeSnobNYC said...

Chuckk,

I forgive you, you're clearly reading this blog for the first time.

--Wildcat Rock Machine

wishiwasmerckx said...

Chuckk, so you've got us there. Cyclists should be legally required to wear seatbelts so they don't go flying off their bikes when they hit a bump.

No arguing with that logic.

Anonymous said...

Greetings from your dystopian future.

Snobby is very correct in focussing his anti-MHL advocacy on quisling fellow cyclists and cycling institutions like successful commercial magazines.

Corporations and venal retailers were in the forefront of supporting the introduction of MHL here. Their commercial motivation was so shamelessly obvious that all these years later I still take delight hearing another LBS is shutting down or that a mega corp is suffering because of those dreaded chinamen.

But the greatest threat to your carefree way of life is the "ordinary" cyclist who loudly supports MHL. Already a couple have surfaced on this very blog, they're an enormous menace. They come in two varieties; 1) the narcissists who believe that if rules and regulations are applied specifically to them, it makes them special, as if their particular fetish is being heralded and made legitimate, and 2) the insecure churchy types who yearn for guidance and stricture in every aspect of their tedious lives and insist everyone else follow the same enlightened path they've embarked upon.

These cyclists are extremely dangerous, there can be no reasoning with them. They are the politicians' ultimate weapon; the useful idiot. Shut them down. Inflict physical injury upon them. Poison their branded water bottles. Trust me, if they're afforded even slightest legitimacy, they will ruin your life. Stop them now while you still can.

Do not underestimate the magnitude of the peril represented by MHL. Everything that is good and noble is crushed in the yoke of MHL. Being denied the Friday Quiz is a very small price to pay in the quest to save California from the scourge of MHL which plagues Australia, New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates.

It's too late for us, our lives are no longer worth living, but we'll be able to take some comfort in our destitution if the brave warriors of California are able to crush this evil onslaught before it begins.

Godspeed, oppressed ones.

wishiwasmerckx said...

...oh, and Chuckk, one more thing. Tell your cousin Chamois Juice hello from me.

the commentariat said...

Anon 6:46:

Inflict physical injury upon them. Poison their branded water bottles.

Deliberately fly their airliners into a mountain.

Anonymous said...

Hernos wear helments

orc said...

Huh. I didn't realize that nobody in Australia rode bicycles because of the evil nanny state. I guess the news articles about Australian cities putting in bike lanes are simply a part of the evil helment conspiracy.

Pfft. It's just like the intellectually bankrupt arguments the anti-vax and anti-flouridation crowd squeeze out.

BikeSnobNYC said...

orc,

Cycling participation in Australia declined after the helment laws. And forget about bike share. Hardly anyone seemed to be using it when I visited Melbourne.

Also, your anti-vax and fluoride comparison is absurd.

--Wildcat Rock Machine

Anonymous said...

orc,

Where do you get you news from?

Cycling lanes inAustralian cities is begrudging, haphazard and in some high-profile quarters the subject of openly explicit hostility. Google "Duncan Gay" if you're not too squeamish. You might get a more balanced appreciation about Australia's cycling sentiment.

There's nothing "intellectually bankrupt" about the Australian helment arguments, they're based on nearly 25 years of actual real life experience.

On what do you base your two sentence dismissal of all that, orc?

Anonymous said...

For a little while I was wearing a helment with all forms of transportation, because people get head injuries inside of cars, too. When no-one joined me, I realized their concern about helments was not so much about safety (ritual bike shaming?) so I stopped in general.

Wearing one did give me the confidence in the driver's seat to simultaneously talk on a flip phone and take a selfie. Super Safe! (picture) mandelics.com/helment_safety.jpg

Moose Jaw Saskatchewan Cipo said...

woman's private parts...

Molson Stock Ale eh!

Anonymous said...

I seem to remember a picture somewhere of Babs sitting on her toilet, blogging on a laptop and wearing a helmet. Now THAT'S being safe!

mark said...

I think wearing a seat-belt is a good idea. But why should it be mandatory?
I don't mind wearing a seat-belt on the highway, but why should I wear one if I'm just going to drive to the shop around the corner?
It's our gov'ment taking our freedoms. I'm heading for the hills.

A dog (but not necessarily Leroy's) said...

On the internet, no one can tell if you're joking.

Redline said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Redline said...

Snobby, you're the Guy Montag of cycling bloggerdom. As a former Jarhead I usually think most people are just sad and aren't worth the effort I put into looking good in a swanky uniform and eating shitty food. But once in a while I see someone standing up for freedom - my freedom - and flipping off the establishment with both fingers and I feel a little better about the world. It's about freedom. Not about helmets. God bless your athiest chamois-clad ass. Semper Fi, man.

Anonymous said...

A dog (but not necessarily Leroy's),

I believe that was Poe's dog, leading to the formulation of Poe's Law.

JLRB said...

pffft?

That is not argument - it is the noise my beik makes just before it throws me.

Bill Crowder said...

Perfect.

Sourth Side Chicago Cipo said...

PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSY!

Arizona Hillbilly said...

The United States is the asshole of the world.
You fucking gringos suck.
Yeah,I said it,you fucking fucks...

Anonymous said...

Excellent, thank you.

Bryan said...

California would want a fucking helment law, wouldn't they? The response is sickening.

Old-timer said...

Lantern rouge on the Friday run-in...

leroy said...

You don't need a helmet to ride safe all!

But in California, my dog advises, that you need his artisanal chamois cream.

skelter weeks said...

I think we have to directly take on this whole culture of fear, and ostracize those who spread the idea that riding a bike is dangerous. So, let's tell people wearing helmets and hi-viz clothing they're not welcome in stores or restaurants. (You wouldn't let someone wearing an athletic cup eat at your restaurant, would you? You'd tell him to take it off, assuming it's on the outside, that is).
And we should put 'ghost helmets' at the scene of any accident where someone died even though they were wearing a helmet. (Why do they put 'ghost bikes' at these places? The bike didn't kill them. It just makes bikes look dangerous. Or maybe 'demon cars' would be better)

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't be surprised about RedKitePrayer. After the whole USADA/Lance thing they said that although they'd wanted to write about Lance in the years before when they worked on big publications, they couldn't because, you know, Lance's people would have cut them off and made their job harder. I sort of gave up on them after that.

Anonymous said...

whilst I agree with your sentiment - you've missed the point of why a helmet law would be a bad thing for the population overall, other than it being draconian.

mandatory helmets == fewer cyclists == unhealthier population == higher obesity == higher healthcare costs than looking after injured cyclists who didn't wear a helmet.

Anonymous said...

Idiots who imagine that compulsory helmets are a good idea should have a good, close look at Australia where they have been for a couple of decades. They work ... in reducing (dramatically) the number of cyclists. They do fuck all for the death toll because of the major body injuries also involved. Helmets have their place and in their place, are often sensible, but a universal requirement has proven to be stupid and anti-cycling in Australia. Of course, those promoting the compulsory helmet argument won't consider Australia, because that would involve research and they've already realised that research does not support compulsion.

Anonymous said...

I live in Australia. Helmets discourage cycling, make us more outsiders and give the impression cycling is far more dangerous than it really is. The proportion of cyclists who are using bikes for transport is much lower in Australia, helmet laws have contributed to ensuring cycling is not a mainstream activity. Head injuries are the same proportion of total injuries as they were before the stupid laws, they are ineffective at reducing head injuries.
Oppose these laws, oppose them now, oppose them vigorously, they are a disaster for cycling.
Believe me, I live in the only country with these stupid laws, you really don't want mandatory helmet laws.

Anonymous said...

National sport? ARL? Not even close. You're thinking of rugby league, but you're right about the helmet thing...

Matt Cassle said...

Nailed it. How about drivers of convertable automobiles wear helmets too? I mean, there noggin's and mops are exposed to the elements just like a cyclist, but at far greater speeds ...

Dooth said...

If California passes the helmet law, Specialized is ready to roll out a new line of bikes, helmets and accessories which will be called:
DYSTOPIA.

Anonymous said...

In the UK, five times more people die going up and down stairs than riding bicycles. So, whenever I'm asked if I wear a helment, I ask the person if they put on a helment to go upstairs

hellofromdystopia said...

Hello from dystopia, and yes, this is what cyclists start looking like when you bring in a helment law, and a lot of the ordinary people drop out. And then you get your bike advocacy organisations lobbying for higher fines for cyclists, and bike advocates speaking at memorials of car dooring victims about how bike riders need to do their bit to 'earn the respect' of motorists.

PS. If you like Australian dystopia, watch Wake In Fright.

JLRB said...

I am against the MHL but I don't think the convertible driver's should wear helments argument is a good one - convertibles have four wheels and are more stable than a two wheeled vehicle.

I grew up in a state (PA) where they decided to remove mandatory helments for motorcycles about 10 years ago - the motorcyclists have been harassed for years and seem to have organized pretty well - maybe there is some lesson biekyclists can learn from them. This site on bikers rights tracks motorcycle laws/changes, and reflect some success at getting MHL's repealed. (Not sure why the first article listed is about a cop killer getting shot 68 times)

The commentariat said...

Isn't it adorable how these Aussies delude themselves into thinking they have something relevant to say?

bieks said...

Sesquicentennary!

Anonymous said...

Some years ago, as I was finishing the first of two laps in the Brompton World Championships, battling for 541st place, the cyclist next to me said in a casual tone, "Hey mate, where's yer helmet?" Jet-lagged, I'd left it on the bus.

No one tackled me, or sued me, thank Winston!

Agreed that helmet laws are the blunt end of the wedgie that the moto-philiacs want to inflict on us. Let us not help them. mcget/trophy bikes philly

J-Bird said...

Your best post. Ever. (And that's saying something).

Marooned on Wreck Beach said...

Name@133: "All I can remember from the post is the shinning vagina."

If it was a selfie taken on Wreck Beach I'll remember it. If not I'll forget it.

meltyman said...

Great post Snobbums. I was out riding a couple of years ago in the cold and a rider I came upon: "where's your helment?". I thought I had put it on but no: I had pulled my balaclava on and what's left of my brain had assumed: "s/thing on head, good to go".

p.s. crabon is so 2000s: when will we get our gaphrene frames?

BamaPhred said...

Good Grief, I go off-fucking for a day and MHL War breaks out. Totally against any and all nanny state feel good laws. At the speeds I am likely to be hit by motorists a helment isn't going to make any difference, and I am as likely to slip in the bathroom, trip on the stairs, fall off a ladder, or defenestrate myself off the roof as I am to fall off my bicycle, none of which require the use of a foam hat, yet. Good job Snob for taking up the cause.

BamaPhred said...

In the absence of a quiz, here is one from The New Yorker. Any comment by Leroy's Dog? I bet he knows the difference!

youcancallmeAl said...

you think insurance companies dont compete on rates? lol! I see why you dont have a real job

Anonymous said...

Over the top as usual, but effective. I'm not for mandatory helmet laws, since I believe we should still have some semblance of free choice left in our lives. I wear a helmet when riding single track or on the road, but a slow trail ride with the girlfriend doesn't need it. I'm guessing that was your first time at RKP as they are actually a high quality site. If you spent any time over there you'd see they do plenty of product reviews and are not shy about pointing out the product flaws (unlike your former employer, Bicycling which has never seen a product they didn't think was amazing). I have little doubt this issue will fade away but not before providing us all with some good old fashioned outrage

What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate said...

Less text about helmets and more about Cipo and Recomb Babe.

Dr. Ruth said...

Arizona Hillbilly @ 11:36

"...you fucking fucks..."

Does that mean having sex twice in one session?

wishiwasmerckx said...

Compete on rates? Why don't you take a look at their P&L's, not their rate quotes.

CSC used to be a pro team sponsor. Read up on the litigation over their claims adjusting software, Colossus.

youcancallmeAl said...

Do I get a discount for non -smoker? yup. safe driver? yup. age? yup. location? yup. would I get one for a helmet? yup.

Anonymous said...

A kite can be a dangerous thing, too - unless you wear a hockey goalie mask. So, let's have Lord Red Kite Prayer of Sanctimonious Land make sure that all family members wear one whilst flying kites.

Maybe Lord RKP should stand in Amsterdam and wave his "opinion" around and see what he hears.

Chump. CHummmmmp.

Down Under Cipo said...

Me pants yabbies is/are the yabbiest yabbies Down Under or Up Top.

Totally Vacant Cipo said...

What!

Son Of David (but having none of it) said...

Don't Jews wear little tiny helmets as they go about their day to day activities? Are they made of crabon? What are they suppose to protect them from.

bieks said...

Is it just me or are people are more uptight about people threatening their own safety than threatening other's personal safety. I can take care of myself thank you. Now if you can just make an effort not to kill others, that would be awesome.

I've had to live with MHL for almost 19 years now. It's tolerable because we only get about a month of really hot weather. Can't imagine MHL in CA (outside of SF) or AU.

dop said...

Hey...wish I was merckx....if you ever get a chance, read V by Thomas Pynchon. There's a recurring theme of mirror imagery which turned into a discussion of how people are mellower the farther south you go, until you cross the equator, and they get more northern again as you go south...the stream of thought ends with a description of the forced march of tribesmen through SW Africa/Namibia by early 20th century German colonists...the men fell to their deaths from beatings, dehydration and starvation...60,000 died. Pynchon noted that that figure was only 1% of 6 million, but a good effort considering the limited technology & resources available

babble on said...

Fuck. I burnt through YET ANOTHER helmet in today's race. :-|

Guy in front of me had a mechanical issue with his new shifter, and he slowed and swerved into me with no warning whatsoever. Now half of my backside bears a strong resemblance to Kim KardASShian's buttocks. It swole to quite a remarkable size within minutes of landing. And I am leaking from several places, too...
Tomorrow is going to hurt. A lot.

babble on said...

We have MHL here, too, though a lot of people just ignore it, including the police, so that works.

Name withheld for security reasons said...

Smuggled out from the Dystopian resistance;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujs6DJAMGp0

Anonymous said...

Ethan wears a cute helmet.

Anonymous said...

The footaball/hockey/baseball analogy is actually sound - pros have to wear helmets but a bunch of mates who grab a football and go down to the local park don't (at least in theory - since you're all fat I assume no one plays football in the park).

mark said...

My immediate thought after reading this important post and following comments was "is it really worth the effort to try to track down the shining vagina?"
Yes it is.

Anonymous said...

To know all that you need to know about the demand for compulsory helmets, you need only look at the people most in favour of it:

- the plastics industry (no surprises there...)

- the motor-insurers

- the motoring organisations, always keen on road safety if it doesn't mean their members having to change their behaviour in the slightest

- the dyed-in-the-wool bike-haters like the British Daily Mail newspaper, who detest all cyclists on principle and are keen on anything which might mean less of them on the roads

- the self-styled "Real Cyclists" who believe that everyone else should dress like them

- the all-round anxiety-neurosis victims who wear a lifejacket in the bath.

If you love cycling, resist this law tooth and nail. Because if Australia is anything to go by, once you have a helmet law no politician would ever dare repeal it.

"if you don't think that protecting the contents of your skull is a good idea, it may be that there is nothing in your skull worth protecting"

God, that's original. Do you mind if I borrow it?

ce said...

The commentariat 10:33, not relevant? Australia just won the Cricket World Cup, so yeah, I think we're pretty fucking relevant. And when we put "World" in the title of a sporting event it means we actually compete against the World - many other great superpowers, like New Zealand.

Don't laugh, cricket is hardcore. Our footy players might not wear helmenents, but cricket batsmen do, and they need it. When they bring in the mandatory helmenentent law for beach cricket it won't be soon enough.

obat ejakulasi dini said...

Thanks for sharing information. Goodluck

Freddy Murcks said...

Regarding other cycling news, is there anybody alive who doesn't believe that Luca Paolini and the whole Katusha team, or, for that matter, the whole fucking Euro peloton are not doped to the gills. Professional bike racing is nothing more than a pharmaceutical arms race. It's stupid and I fucking hate it.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/gent-wevelgem-2015/results

Freddy Murcks said...

At least he's wearing a helment. Being doped to the gills without a helment would be a violation of the UCI's rules.

BamaPhred said...

I plan on the afternoon's Fredliness sans helment, Snob hat instead. It's gonna be awesome. I'm leaving this as a testament that if I don't return, at least I died with with my Sidi's on.

Utah Fast Food Eater said...

Steely Danzig

The character from Repo Man you are thinking about is Miller

He was right the more you drive the dumber you get

This helmet discussion is a rich subject..I'd like to go "bigger Picture" with this topic but not sure what my point would be

I do remember clearly circa 1972
Not a bike helmet in sight
NHL players did not wear helmets for the most part
Ski with a helmet on back then you would get laughed off the mountain

At what point did the nanny state get such legs? what is the vector behind it?
Its all part of a cosmic unconsciousness according to Miller

mcq said...

WCRM - THANK YOU

Will Robinson said...

Robbie the Robot has a crabon fibre anal pore.

Vancouver Canuck Cipo said...

Huh! eh!

motley fool said...

As long as Babble is racing, I rate Lazer's stock a, "BUY".

gordon gecko said...

Fuck the stock, buy the company

The Wharton School Post Geaduate said...

Benjamin. One word. Crabon-fibre.

babble on said...

Paolini crashed twice and still won the Gent-Wevelgem, so there's hope for me yet. :)

Anonymous said...

I sure hope RAPHA develops a bike helmet, because…RAPHA!

BamaPhred said...

I survived the afternoon Fred ride of shame, sans helment. It was liberating.
Ok, All these posts, Babs ass is hurting, and not one offer to rub a healing salve? Gentlemen, I for one, am ashamed for the lack of compassion and dare I say, chivalry?
You know I would volunteer for the task, but I'm too far away.
Here is some virtual healing Ms Babble. ( makes rubbing motion with hand in air)

Pathetic Old Cyclist said...

I think here in the statesthe MHL will be toothless. As Babs mentioned , 3/28 @ 10:25, most riders will ignore the law, as will the police. Hell, NY already has an unenforced helmet low on the book since 2004. All riders under 14 must wear a helmet. Nobody sets their kids up with helmets anymore.

Pathetic Old Cyclist said...

.....except in NYC?

dop said...

I always wear a helmet, but it did nothing for me today when I slid on some gravel & landed on my hip. (clipped in)(minimal road rash)

The roads around here are crumbling after a rough winter.

dnk said...

I'm wearing my helmet while surfing the internet. Surfing is inherently dangerous.

dop said...

I'm glad those young people were present to see Bamaphred demonstrate an authentic application of genuine Tuscaloosa Booty Balm...

babble on said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
babble on said...

Bless your heart, dop, and your similarly banged up backside! We are companions in ouch today. :)

Cheers, BamaPhred! This bruised booty could definitely do with a little lovin. Well appreciated on this too sore to sit sort of day! xo

dop said...

199

dop said...

199

dop said...

is that all there is?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 226   Newer› Newest»