How to Put Words in Someone’s Mouth

Posted on August 12, 2011 by Dave Feucht

4 days ago, I was contacted by Joseph Rose, who writes the Hard Drive blog for the local paper, the Oregonian. He mentioned that he was linking to my “Why I Don’t Wear a Helmet” article in a column he was writing (now posted at the link above) about the crash of former pro football quarterback Joey Harrington in Portland. Harrington’s father had made a statement that Harrington’s helmet saved his life, and in his email, Rose said that because this had hit the news, he thought it was a good time to bring up the arguments between the two sides of the helmet debate.

Immediately, this raises big red flags for me. Intentionally furthering this debate is something I have no desire to do. As I see it, I am not on either side. I choose not to wear a helmet, and I choose to let everyone else make whatever decision they feel like – as is amply noted in my “Why I Don’t Wear a Helmet” post (see the link in the menubar at the top of the blog). I chose to be wary in my interaction with him because of this, and gave him the following statement to use if he would like to quote me, which he didn’t: I feel people should look at research, their own circumstances and behaviors, and make an informed decision for themselves about wearing a helmet.

I also made the following statements to Rose via email:

There probably is some chance that the helmet saved his life, but without a lot of testing, which would require putting a human in a life-threatening position over and over, it’s impossible to know for sure, as there are just too many variables – it’s really all conjecture, one way or the other, and that’s not even taking into account the risk of a crash in the first place, which is another very complicated equation with a multitude of factors. I think it’s important that people take all of those things into consideration and make a decision for themselves that they are comfortable with, and I think it’s perfectly fine to choose to wear a helmet in some cases, and not in others, as the circumstance plays into how likely you are to crash and how serious it might be.

He said to me, in explaining what his article would be about: “Mention of your article will take up just a sentence or two of the larger column, which explores both sides.”

In reality, his column focuses largely on attacking me personally, putting words in my mouth, and making a lot of emotionally charged statements, and saying that I state things which I do not. I am the only person he mentions by name in the “helmet haters” category. He makes the statement that I am on a “fool’s crusade” to stop people from wearing helmets, and that I state on my blog that a propeller beanie offers more protection in a crash over 20mph than a helmet.

Now, to quote what I actually say in my article:

The following statement of mine is not meant to be an argument, it’s not meant to convince anyone to not wear a helmet, and it’s not meant to incite yelling, name-calling or any other such emotional reaction.

Firstly, I am not anti-helmet. I don’t hate people who wear helmets, or think they are stupid, or childish. I think many of them make a perfectly rational decision to wear a helmet at least some of the time they are on a bike, and I believe that is their free choice, and I trust them to make a decision based on their own set of circumstances, as I would expect them to do for me.

I think a big part of the decision for me is that, yes, a helmet will probably reduce your overall likelihood of injury – but the likelihood of any kind of major injury (speaking with regard to my own personal case specifically) is so small in the first place, it doesn’t make that much difference.

Please take all research and statistics with a grain of salt, and think about them rationally and in relation to your own personal situation before coming to any conclusions based on them. Find out how they were conducted, and the overall scope of the research, if possible. Research studies are often heavily skewed, making the results misleading and even if the study was done well, the results of the study may not be applicable to you, depending on the focus and intent of the study. People also have a penchant for (consciously or unconsciously) taking the results of studies out of context and using them to make a point, which can also be problematic. The media, as well, has a penchant for creating hysteria where there really is nothing to be hysterical about. Anyway, all I’m trying to say here, is inform yourself, and then make a decision based on what you are comfortable with.

Clearly, I have it out for anybody who decides to wear a helmet. I’m on a crusade to convert you, watch out!

I think this is one of the most disgusting pieces of what passes for journalism that I’ve run across in recent history, and not just because it focuses on me. He either deliberately mis-states my point of view, never read my statement in the first place and just attributed the “helmet hater” label to me since I don’t wear one, or deliberately mis-understands my point of view himself. The one actual statistic he lists is from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which it states on their page is “wholly supported by these auto insurers.” – and provides a link to a list of them. Also, the statistic listed is coincidental evidence. You might as well say 93% of riders killed in the U.S. were not wearing sunglasses. Listing a statistic like that does nothing to prove causality one way or another, as, for all we know, many, most or all of those people might also have died if they were wearing a helmet. To state otherwise is disingenuous and misleading.

In his column, Rose states “Of course, there will always be smart, educated people who are skeptical of statistics. I’m glad I wasn’t one.” I think any smart, educated person should be skeptical of statistics, for exactly the reasons I state in my article. When I made that statement in my article, I was referring to all statistics. They can always be gotten by invalid measures, taken out of context to make a point, and manipulated and spun in any direction.

Basically what happened here, is Rose needed someone to be anti-helmet to write a controversial column that would get attention, so he chose me because I don’t wear a helmet, represented my position as a helmet hater in his column, and now gets to make money for it. He also exploited someone else’s injury, and possibly near-death to both attack me, and further a debate online which is well-noted for being light on evidence, and gushing over with emotion. This is the state of our media.

I’m not trying to make a statement one way or the other about whether the helmet did or didn’t save Mr. Harrington’s life. What I am trying to do, is say that my position on the issue of bicycle helmets was grossly mis-represented here, intentionally, by Joseph Rose, and used divisively to start an argument, supporting his own agenda, and using the misfortune and coincidental celebrity of another person as the platform on which to float his column.

Joe, there’s your statement. Feel free to link to it.

This entry was posted in portland and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=13302839 Malex Reed

    Dave, I didn’t like Joe Rose’s column either. I think it challenges a tiny minority of readers while leaving the vast majority with no more insight into why Those Helmetless Bicyclists might choose to do such a crazy thing.

    However, I didn’t read it as an attack on you personally. You’re mentioned twice by my count. Both times, something you said is mentioned in a list of things anti-helmet-advocacy people say. He did cherry-pick the propeller beanie comment, and certainly didn’t engage in any meaningful way with your actual viewpoint in his column. But, I don’t think you were tarred and feathered.

    I wish he had talked about the real reason many people (including myself) sometimes don’t wear a helmet: we think riding a bike (in our own individual circumstances) is safe enough already.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      I guess because he told me ahead of time that it would go into both sides of the argument, and then it basically turned into a diatribe against “helmet haters,” with my name being the only one mentioned, it felt a bit like a personal attack.

      • dev*

        I would agree that it wasn’t really a personal attack, though I also agree that he (significantly) misrepresented/misunderstood your stance. It was particularly unfair considering his dialog with you.

        He obviously feels strongly about the situation due to past personal experience, and it’s his right as a column writer to be opinionated just as you have that right here on your blog, but it’s definitely frustrating that it was handled this way.

        • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

          Yeah, I think it was largely the circumstances surrounding the article that made it feel like a personal attack. If I had just read the article out of the blue, it would have just felt like he was lying to serve his own cause (which I still feel).

          He has a right to state his own opinion (that people should wear helmets), but I don’t feel he has the right to intentionally mis-state my opinion in order to serve his cause of vilifying the “helmet haters,” which honestly, almost don’t exist. At least in my experience, most people who would get put in that category simply want to have, or to maintain choice, and to focus the crux of the debate on safety where it should be. I don’t think anyone is proposing that we ban helmets.

          Meh. Thanks for your help over on Oregonlive, too, I appreciate it :)

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      But mostly I found it apalling how he blatantly misrepresented my position on the issue in order to further his own agenda. Just wrong.

    • http://www.mairzydoatsdesigns.com/ Patrina Feucht

      just to clarify and show again how Mr Rose lied and put words into Dave’s mouth, Dave has never said  anything about a propeller beanie, ever. I have no idea where that statement came from. The way he wrote when mentioning him intentionally paints an untrue picture of Dave and others that would choose the same viewpoint. 

      I don’t think the article was only to attack Dave, but i do believe that he turned Dave into his villain to make his point and that to me is underhanded and sleazy.

      • dev*

        The tricky bit is that he didn’t say Dave said that, just implied that Dave supports that view. It’s the context of both his comments regarding Portlandize that insinuate an attitude that doesn’t exist here. It’s a standard (and dirty) writing tactic used a lot in journalism. Makes a point and leaves room for “plausible deniability”.

        In the particular case regarding speed there may be some legitimate misunderstanding too – Joe is obviously emotionally caught up on that detail from the arguments of others.  The science does support the position that the helmet could help regardless if the initial speed of impact. There’s not enough empirical data either way from what I’ve seen in regards to real world impacts, especially since many helmet failures are a result of helmets not being worn properly, which is rarely known for sure post-impact (if the helmet is loose even a little, which is common, the multiple impact sequence can induce a split). All of that means someone can easily say that you can’t draw that line, and that there is no supporting evidence for such a comment… which is what happened here.

        Since I know Dave, I know that wasn’t the intent of his comment, but it can read that way from that perspective. I told him myself that was the one part of his article I never liked, I just avoided bringing up the topic. :)

        The choice of placement of the link to Portlandize was leading and aggressive (that actually annoyed me more), and the beanie comment, wherever it came from, was petty. His original request implied he would look at both sides, but he really didn’t. On the bright side, hopefully some people read through and came to their own conclusions.

        • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

          Yeah, Joe seemed really heavily stuck on that detail, and he even has brought it up a couple more times with me in emails since then. That segment in my article was largely a case of language laziness on my part, which I realize is a bad idea in discussions like this, so I’ve modified the language to soften it a bit, as I realize there is a chance that a helmet could have some benefit above 15-20mph, but that the efficacy is greatly reduced at that point. I think it is likely that, since the current standards don’t regulate or test beyond that level, that many helmets currently manufactured aren’t intended to protect you significantly beyond that level (product manufacturers of any type are hardly known for going beyond regulations if they don’t have to, and a number of helmets have been shown to not even meet current standards). In my own case, I have significant enough doubt about how effective it really would be (coupled with the rest of my statement, likelihood of getting hit, crashing, hitting my head, my own comfort level, etc) that I don’t feel that I need to wear a helmet specifically in order to mitigate the circumstance of getting hit by a car, and that’s all I intended to say in the first place.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=13302839 Malex Reed

        Oh! I assumed that the propeller beanie comment was something Dave had actually said! The truth about that puts a whole different spin on this business….

        • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

          Yeah, you start to see how his column seems a bit shadier than the underside of a rock…

        • Pembquist

          Wait wait.  When I read the column I didn’t think dave made the beanie comment, its from the cyclehelmets.org site.  

          • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

            It is? It actually says somewhere on cyclehelmets.org that a helmet is no more effective than a propeller beanie?

        • http://www.mairzydoatsdesigns.com/ Patrina Feucht

          yeah, when i read it i got the same impression, that he was implying that was a comment Dave made, which was one of the things that made me so mad. (Full disclosure, i am dave’s wife and so have been seeing the whole thing unfold, it’s exasperating!) The way the statement was written it doesn’t say that Dave says that, but worded in such a way that one could easily infer that he did, and Ross did say that the statement was a view that Dave holds.  Ug, the whole thing just feels so full of crafted manipulation and adolescent schoolyard bully tactics…

  • Rithy Khut

    I personally don’t understand Mr. Rose especially with all the back and forth with BikePortland.org. It really seems he uses his blog as a vehicle of causing controversy. But the sad thing is there doesn’t seem to be a line between blog (which can be either objective or non) and a real column (objective journalism). Since it is on OregonLive it would seem to be that he it as a podium to use as a real column.

    So don’t let him worry you and keep fighting the good fight.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Rithy: yeah, I’ve seen some of his interaction with Jonathan, which was partly why I felt suspicious of him in the first place. In media these days, only sensational “news” gets attention, so I feel like much of the news is trying to create controversy where there is none. There is no anti-helmet faction, nobody is saying we should ban helmets or that people absolutely shouldn’t wear them. Nobody. What people do say, is that we should focus on more fundamental issues of safety first, and that use of helmets shouldn’t be mandated in lieu of actually making the roads safe to travel on.

      But that’s boring. It’s much more exciting if were a bit crazy, hate helmets and we’re waging a war on all those rational people who wear them. It’s sad that this kind of thing passes for actual journalism.

      Thanks for the comment, I really appreciate it.

    • dev*

      Most “real” columns (advice, editorial, critic) have never been intended to be objective journalism, and are really the classic basis for what blogs are now. They are biased, opinionated rants and commentary from individuals which readers like to follow due to subject matter or charisma. The real line is, if they don’t do well or annoy the wrong people, they get fired. But they certainly aren’t objective.

  • Melinda

    People can go back and forth arguing about helmets.  I see both perspectives.  What I’m more concerned about is the number of cyclists who know how to physically ride a bike but have not been given any pointers on bicycle safety growing up, due to the elimination of such programs in a majority of public schools, OR understand the small amount of bicycle related laws out there who ride.   It seems odd that we don’t have any comprehensive program in America to educate those who choose to get on a bicycle and use it on our public roads, especially when it appears that defensive bicycle riding is the key to making it to your next destination. (I am not suggesting that those who were hit recently were at fault and could have prevented what happened to them.)  Also, I would be interested in knowing if anyone has actually completed extensive observations of cyclists who use various intersections or parts of the bicycle system in Portland?  How are cyclists doing? What percentage follow basic bicycle safety?   By the sounds of a vocal minority you would think that every cyclist in Portland is running a muck out there.  It would be nice to have some hard data to look at.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      People often comment that our roads feel like a war zone, and of course, you wear protective gear in a war. I honestly almost never feel that. Maybe twice per year I feel intentionally intimidated by someone in a car, and maybe once or twice a month, I feel like I have a kind of awkward traffic interaction, not necessarily even one that felt dangerous, but just where we misunderstood each other and had to correct.

      I do occasionally see cyclists running red lights, but it is almost entirely when there is literally no other traffic around, and it makes no difference to anybody. I don’t remember the last time I saw someone run a red light and end up cutting off someone who had right of way. I certainly do see them doing stupid things sometimes like riding down the median line between lanes of opposite-direction traffic, but then I also see people in cars pull into an oncoming traffic lane, with cars coming at them at full speed, just to pass people on bicycles, and nearly cause a head-on collision.

      I really honestly feel like the amount of stupidness is pretty evenly distributed through all modes. It’s not how you get around, it’s just that some people are stupid, selfish, arrogant and aggressive, and most are not. Some of those people end up riding bikes, some of them driving, some of them walking, and many of them doing all three at some point.

      Honestly, I feel like 95% of the time, riding my bike in Portland is a breeze. That’s a large part of why I don’t wear a helmet. My experience has shown me that it’s usually not stressful and dangerous, and of course, I’m only basing my own decision on my own experience. But somehow, people always expect me to make my decisions based on *their* own experience, even if it’s on a different bike, in a different city, if they ride really aggressively, or they, for instance, ride BMX doing jumps and tricks. I’m sorry, but if you’re a BMX rider, and you want me to make my own safety decisions for riding around Portland streets on a huge, heavy bike for transportation based on your experience riding BMX, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

      I do think traffic education for *everyone* is hugely important, as we have almost no traffic education at all. We should have education in schools about how to use *all* types of vehicles, and it should be mandatory that this education be refreshed frequently, that people are re-tested, and that if they fail to learn updated information or to remember the old stuff, they have their licenses revoked. We all need to know how to behave together, what to expect from each other, and what is expected of us in the mix, and very few people are actually aware of what they are legally required to do.

      • Melinda

        Thanks for your first hand on the ground information about riding in Portland.  Yes, I think education is the key.  I returned to cycling recently  in order to commute, run errands, and make visits.  I received excellent support and advice from experienced cyclists on how to navigate the streets.  They helped me brush up on the laws, etc., (Where I am we have in no way the same bicycle infrastructure that you have in Porland.) Yes, folks like us who ride Dutch style bikes certainly don’t fit the BMX profile.  (I probably ride slower than the Dutch – in fact one Dutch fellow cyclist in town always passes me:)  Also, my  new “scientific theory” is that many of the cyclists running red lights run red lights when they get behind the wheel of a car.   In other words, maybe it’s the same people.

  • Pembquist

    Dave, re helmets and all, you probably already know but one thing that people love to do is offer advice and be outraged.  I’m sure you’ve gotten comments along the lines of “WEAR A HELMET” while minding your own business riding down the street.  This can be irksome and if I understand correctly the censoriousness of others is the reason you wrote “why I don’t wear a helmet.”  Unfortunately no matter how mildly and laissez faire you put it I think it is inevitable that your article will be understood as a “manifesto” (well not really) but at least as an argument for not wearing a helmet.

    Safety equipment is such a strange thing. I personally now wear a helmet as a I don’t see any percentage in not wearing one.  Honestly I never gave it a thought for 30 years so maybe it is just age changing perception of risk/health care costs.  The only time I wore a helmet up until 5 years ago was when I worked as a bike messenger in NYC in 1980-81.  That was a hockey helmet, and it made me a rare bird amongst my cohort.  These days a helmet costs nothing whereas back then I think there was one Bell bike helmet, which was expensive, and then those silly leather hair nets whose job was to keep blood out of your eyes I guess.  Anyway what is strange about safety equipment is that there seems to be an inborn hostility to it.  I encounter this in the realm of construction and power tools all the time.  The number of spurious rationalizations used to justify disabling or not using safety equipment in construction is legion.  I think we could do worse than to wonder to what degree our self-considered rational thinking about bike helmets is prey to bias informed by that most human of human influencers: fashion.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      I realize people may take my article as an argument as to why people shouldn’t wear a helmet, but I don’t believe I’m responsible for that in any way, especially after going to great lengths to state my intentions in writing the thing in the first place. I could say just about anything in a public forum, and just about any person could interpret it in just about any way. Were John Lennon and Paul McCartney responsible for Charles Manson because they wrote a song and made it available to the public? They didn’t even write a disclaimer of what it was intended to mean. All I’m saying is, by making something public, of course people are going to interpret it different ways. That doesn’t change my intention, or make me responsible for their behavior.

      Honestly, my decision to not wear a helmet was largely driven by never feeling like it was necessary, once I actually got on a bike and started riding it. I don’t feel like the streets are a war (most of them, here, anyway), I don’t feel uncertain, and I don’t feel intimidated by people driving (very rarely). I just honestly have never really felt in danger on my bike. If I honestly felt like I was taking a huge safety risk, I would wear one. I don’t. So I don’t wear one. I actually bought one when I first started riding a bike, but the more and more I got used to riding, the less and less I felt the helmet was necessary.

      I think some people may indeed be swayed by fashion, and I realize you are now implying that I am. That honestly was not a consideration for me. As I said, I wore a helmet initially (even in the summer, when it made my head hot and sweaty). After riding for a while, I just simply felt more and more that it wasn’t necessary, so I stopped wearing it. I’ve done a lot of looking into statistics and research and whatnot since then, and nothing has convinced me significantly either of the danger of riding a bicycle in the manner that I ride, or the overwhelming effectiveness of bicycle helmets at reducing major injures, so I’ve decided to just go with my instinct and keep riding without a helmet. That’s it.

      I don’t really think the construction analogy is a good one, as use of power tools clearly ups your risk of certain injuries considerably, and there are also liability issues for the company who employs you, which obviously make avoiding injuries important to them. I’m actually about as likely to suffer a major head injury walking up and down stairs everyday as I am riding my bike.

      I will maintain that I personally don’t need safety equipment to make the trips that I make around the city, and as I’ve said, I limit that opinion to myself. I never have, nor will I ever, tell you or someone else not to wear one if you feel better about wearing it.

  • http://twitter.com/lovelybicycle Lovely Bicycle!

    This is unacceptable. Have you contacted the Oregonian? Even though it is a blog, it is connected to them and they should ultimately be accountable for permitting this person to write false statements about you. The propeller beanie comment seemed familiar to me, so it makes sense that someone mentioned about it being from another website. Appalling. And this illustrates one reason I do not give interviews to reporters unless I know and trust them. 

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Yeah, unfortunately if you decline an interview apparently you wound their pride and they decide to make petty jabs at you instead. I’ve been advised, and will take the advice, to just say “no comment” in the future and leave it at that. In fact, I’ve already used it, as I was asked to go on a live OPB Radio show with Mr. Rose and talk about this. That didn’t sound appealing in any way whatsoever.

      They were wondering why nobody who chooses not to wear a helmet called in to the show… Maybe because they are used to being vilified for that decision. I certainly am.

    • http://www.mairzydoatsdesigns.com/ Patrina Feucht

      my thoughts exactly!

  • http://www.simplybikeblog.com Simply Bike

    Dave, this is horrible and I’m sorry you had this experience! I think your original post on why you choose not to wear a helmet is extremely well written, nuanced in its argumentation, and in tune with the complexities of the situation. It’s not as black and white as “helmet hater” vs “helmet wearer”. Because the issue isn’t that simple. Like you said, a responsible and intelligent adult will take into account a plethora of factors when deciding whether or not to wear a helmet. I wear one for most of my rides in my current town, but have ridden without one in Europe and in settings where it seemed like the risks were minimal. It’s all about making an informed decision based on context and that’s what I think your article makes very clear. 

    It’s a shame that this Joe Rose can’t think in shades other than black and white and felt the need to vilify you in order to make his point. Such a sad example of poor journalism.

    S. 

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Yeah, that’s exactly the statement I wanted to make by writing that article in the first place – that everyone’s circumstances are different, and in my own, I don’t feel a helmet is necessary. That’s it. Thanks for your comment, it’s good to keep getting re-assured that there are people in the world who understand that kind of idea, as it can sometimes feel very one-sided and out of control, especially when you get into this kind of a situation, and then not to mention the comments that follow on a post like he posted – such as “anyone who doesn’t wear a helmet deserves to have their head cracked open.” (…and that on a post mentioning at least one cyclist who was just hit by a car and killed recently who wasn’t wearing a helmet – apparently they deserved to die).

      I feel it’s completely irresponsible journalism to use someone’s misfortune to make this kind of a point, because that’s exactly the sentiment you stir up – “if you don’t protect yourself, you deserve whatever you get.” I don’t think that’s helping anyone, whether they choose to wear a helmet or not.

  • http://twitter.com/KYouell Kath Youell

    We wear helmets, but it’s not really a safety-from-accidents thing as much as a parenting thing. I’ve got a 4-year-old and a 6-year-old sitting right in front of my handlebars and I bonk their heads if they aren’t in helmets. Law or not, they’d be in helmets just because of that. My husband and I wear them because it’s important to lead by example. Just as you say there aren’t people out to convert us from being helmet wearers, I have no desire to convert people to helmet wearers… except for those sitting in front of handlebars that are going to get their heads bonked from a simple turn.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Yeah, in terms of being responsible in our decisions (not just regarding helmets), I feel that it’s responsible to (and to encourage others to) look at their own situation, think as objectively as possible, look at facts, and make their own well-informed personal decisions, and to encourage others to then trust that they made a good decision based on their circumstances.

      We get so wrapped up in trying to make decisions for everyone else, or fear-monger people into making decisions that benefit us somehow (whether it be monetarily, or just personally, in making us feel like we’re more right for making the decision we did).

  • Adrienne Johnson

    So silly. Such a waste of time. This issue is the one many people use to have an opinion without having to think about it. It is the easy way to feel superior to others with the hope of one day being able to say “I told you so!”. I doubt he read your article with any degree of attention and only for tidbits to use as cudgels (much like listening for something to react to and not what is being said). Take comfort in knowing that there are more people who actually think before they speak out there than the Internet or the media would suggest.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Thanks Adrienne, I appreciate it, and I agree. I know there are a lot of people out there who do think rationally about this, I just hope they continue to with all the onslaught of either vehement or subtle “protect yourself, or else” messages that get thrown out in media and politics. It helps to know people like you are around. Cheers!

  • somervillain

    Not to play devil’s advocate, but in spite how much you claim that you are helmet-neutral and encourage people to make decisions for themselves, it’s interesting  that the links you provide for people to begin their own research into the subject are ALL anti-helmet biased.  There are plenty of pro-helmet sites out there, but either you were unaware of them or you consciously chose to omit them.  Reminds me of a certain new network claiming to provide “fair and balanced” news coverage.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Actually, the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, which was one of the two links I provided, if you had read their site at all, states explicitly “Our own belief, of course, is that a cyclist should wear a bike helmet. We are helmet advocates, after all.”

      I don’t think that’s anti-helmet biased.

      If you’re going to make disparaging implications about me, at least know what you’re talking about. Thanks.