Originally Posted by
livedarklions
I'm able to comprehend a logical argument, but you're all over the barn. Start with that first statement I quote above--that's not limited to your area, you're making a blanket statement that the assertion that mandatory helmet use will reduce ridership isn't true. Then you make an argument that seems to be because you see a lot of bicyclists in your area, that you can make some sort of generalizations about helmet use in "strong" cycling areas.
Oh, and the cat/troll fellow is definitely a he.
Wow, so I respond to a blanket statement (in the OP) with a comment about my local surroundings that explains my point of view then you call my comment a blanket statement. Wow! You're not following along.
Again, read what you typed. "BECAUSE YOU SEE A LOT OF BICYCLISTS IN YOUR AREA"......EXACTLY!!!!!!
I am in California. You are in Boston, am I trying to tell you what your cycling environment is like there? No, I have never been there, never cycled there. If I tried to tell you how cycling conditions were there not knowing, I would feel like a fool. ;-)
Again, I have no idea what it is like in Boston. I am no stupid enough to try to correct what someone says about that area. BUT as HE mentioned before, If someone says there is no place in the US where many people ride Specialized, I will argue that is not true because in California, A LOT OF PEOPLE are riding Specialized. That is a fact and I can pull up a few pics of MY friends riding them.
AND again, you are going to try to tell me that I only see what I want to see not ever being here? WOW! You are a winner! I see every commuter and utility rider wearing helmets where I ride. Road, trails, and mountains (though not many utility or commuters there). But every cyclist I see here is wearing a helmet. I am not that much of a fool to tell you about your area without having been there.
I did also mention that I know a couple of guys who don't wear a helmet, but you failed to mention that.