Gnome: 1, Bruce: 0

That's right kidds, after a show of hands by a likely quite-biased audience, the Gnome has defeated the mighty ex-mayor.

Yes, I attended. Yes, I biked there (all 15 round-trip miles of it). Yes, I wore my helmet. And, yes, I sat in the very front row so you can rest assured that every thing I'm going to tell you is purely factual.

Though, my point here is not to argue either way, but to relate how well each side presented their arguments, what I felt their key arguments were, and how the audience reacted. There are others who can lead you if you're curious about the logic of this ordeal. Of course, this is all my perspective, but what you said or meant isn't nearly as important as what I, an audience member, heard, now is it?

Oh, and Dionysium is awesome. Go. Learn, laugh, and drink beer.

Continuing the structure of the forum, the affirmative, the Mighty ex-Mayor goes first. I felt his major arguments were:

• Helmets are like safety belts, and we all agree that "Click it or Ticket" is a fine policy. [There are those who disagree with the first part of that statement.]
• Bike accidents cost society the big bucks in medical expenses.

He did little to rebut the Gnome's claims. The opening arguments, the rebuttal, and the closing said basically the same thing. I don't personally feel that he identified his goal and the most efficient means to accomplish it very well. Think Big Picture, ex-Mayor! Other than a few statistics, he did not argue that helmets were actually protecting us from anything other than bleached hair (ok, he didn't argue that either).

And I felt he had the easiest argument: something on my head is better than nothing if I fall on it. But other than pulling a few heart-strings and sounding calm and politician-y, it was rather weak.

Mr. Gnome, on the other hand, was fighting in the negative. Going against instinct on one had and dealing with the negative connotation of his "negative" position.

• If the goal is to improve cycling safety, helmets are so much less effective than other measures.
  
• Example: require a one-day training class for youngsters/adults where they learn bike safety principles.
  
• Besides: in the past 3 years, there have been no citations for violating the under 18 helmet law currently in effect. All bark, no bite isn't effective. [A law wouldn't likely change my helmet-wearing behavior.]
• And: Of the 13 cycling fatalities in Austin in the past 2, 3? years, all were collisions with cars. Some were wearing helmets, some weren't. [I thought it intriguing that the email Gnome sent me yesterday said "all save one" and on stage that reduced to "all." Convenient, eh?]
• I am mathematician, statistics are easily manipulated. My statistics (large-scale) are better than his (too detailed and more susceptible to other factors). I know, I'm mathematician. [I don't know Mr. Gnome, I don't know.]
• Helmets are designed to be safe for speeds less than 14 mph, on flat surfaces. They are more effective for youngsters since they're lighter. Most adults cycle at faster speeds and if they get hit by a car, they speed will for sure be higher.

I thought Mr. Gnome's argument was pretty solid without mention of these next two theories:

• Personal liberties [It just seemed like a cop-out and implied, to me, that the original argument wouldn't stand by itself. I don't think the audience had the same objection. They cheered. Spakalina just thinks we're more critical than the general public.]
• You're more likely to get a head injury while wearing a helmet since, subconsciously, your body is aware that it's "protected" and won't maneuver to land on something else. [The first time I heard this, I launched a major objection. Now I just roll my eyes. It's interesting, but provable? It's just sketchy. But, again, the audience seemed more, "Huh, never considered that," than "What a nutcase!"]

And that's as much clarity as I have tonight.