bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 14 Sep 2006 07:20:39 From: NYC XYZ Subject: Helmet Nazis at It Again! A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another 200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF??? Anyway, there's a spokesman from the Rebel Alliance on a segment of Brian Lehrer's show "On the Line." It should be podcasted by tomorrow if you miss it today. http://www.wnyc.org/   Date: 08 Oct 2006 08:44:58 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m34puezvq9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> >> How come you never have anything to say about actually >> riding a bicycle? > > Projection - you haven't been posting about actually riding one. You don't hang around r.b.m much, do ya? I'm not surprised. It's more of a /real/ cylist thing. So anyways, I'm curious -- who actually pays you and Frank K and Guy Chapman and jtaylor et al to expend so much time and energy arguing amongst each other? cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 09 Oct 2006 05:24:02 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m34puezvq9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> > >> How come you never have anything to say about actually > >> riding a bicycle? > > > > Projection - you haven't been posting about actually riding one. > > You don't hang around r.b.m much, do ya? > I'm not surprised. It's more of a /real/ cylist thing. Oh. So you think a "real cyclist" is one who reads a mountain bike newsgroup. You really need to broaden your horizons. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 08 Oct 2006 07:01:05 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m38xjr5vht.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m38xjrk1s9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> > >> >> In article <m3ac479ae5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> >> > >> >> >> In article <m3ejtt3vus.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually, just for you, I /am/ acting like an adult. >> >> >> Acting exactly like you, ya Nazi-moron-liar. >> >> > >> >> > You are delusional, not to mention dishonest. >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> >> >> Of course I am. So are you. So is everybody >> >> with a world view or belief system. >> >> >> > >> > No - you are delusional, not to mention dishonest, >> > just as I said. >> >> If you say so. > > Yes, I say so. How come you never have anything to say about actually riding a bicycle? > <rest of this infant's garbage snipped> cheers, ya big lug, ya, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 08 Oct 2006 15:14:54 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > How come you never have anything to say about actually > riding a bicycle? Projection - you haven't been posting about actually riding one. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 08 Oct 2006 06:55:36 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m3bqonib2a.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) writes: > > [Note how Keats carefully snipped the obvious lies he told - even he > must know how ridiculous he is.] > >> In article <m3hcyf5vk5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> >> Hit a nerve, did I? >> > >> > Nope, you just made yourself look like an idiot. You post lie after >> > lie, >> >> Yeah, it's a conspiracy against specifically you. >> You know the Ultimate Truth, and we must stop you >> from conveying it. It's all our fault & design >> that nobody understands your POV. Sorta like >> the X Files. > > How lame. That's the impression your responses give me, too. >> generally act like a child, and then whine when anyone points >> > out your infantile behavior. >> >> Actually I'm having a great time. It's a long weekend >> (Canadian Thanksgiving.) I discovered I've saved more >> money than I thought I had. Friends will be dropping by, >> shortly, and a six-pack of Heinekens is chilling in the >> freezer for 'em. I just choked down a delicious cold-cut >> subine samwich w/ green olives and slices of hot banana >> pepper in it. Whine? Perish the thought. >> >> Life is good. > > And you think anyone believes you? I don't particularly care. But it really /is/ Canadian Thanksgiving. Just look at any Canadian calendar. My next statutory holiday will be Nov. 11. I know that doesn't mean much to many of you Americans. I guess you'll also demand documentation of: (1) my purchase of a Mr. Sub sandwich with green (not black) olives and hot banana peppers (2) my purchase of a six-pack of Heinekens (3) my social activities (4) my bank account I'm sorry, but as a Nazi/liar/moron, I can't provide those details. You will be no doubt pleased to note I complied with our local MHL as I rode around to get all that stuff. I also went into Flying Wedge Pizza and tried to order a large pepperoni & double cheese pie. They wanted $23 bux for it! Screw that noise. Simon at Baru Pizza only charges $9.95 for the same thing. I took my money back and told 'em to f.o. cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 08 Oct 2006 15:08:19 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m3bqonib2a.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) writes: > > > > [Note how Keats carefully snipped the obvious lies he told - even he > > must know how ridiculous he is.] > > > >> Yeah, it's a conspiracy against specifically you. > >> You know the Ultimate Truth, and we must stop you > >> from conveying it. It's all our fault & design > >> that nobody understands your POV. Sorta like > >> the X Files. > > > > How lame. > > That's the impression your responses give me, too. Can't develop your own material, can you? <snip > > I guess you'll also demand documentation of: > (1) my purchase of a Mr. Sub sandwich with > green (not black) olives and hot banana > peppers > (2) my purchase of a six-pack of Heinekens > (3) my social activities > (4) my bank account > > I'm sorry, but as a Nazi/liar/moron, I can't > provide those details. Do you have any idea of how silly you look when you post such statements regarding questions nobody has asked of you? But thanks for at least admitting that you are a "nazi/liar/moron". :-) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 07 Oct 2006 22:03:50 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m3hcyf5vk5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> Hit a nerve, did I? > > Nope, you just made yourself look like an idiot. You post lie after > lie, Yeah, it's a conspiracy against specifically you. You know the Ultimate Truth, and we must stop you from conveying it. It's all our fault & design that nobody understands your POV. Sorta like the X Files. generally act like a child, and then whine when anyone points > out your infantile behavior. Actually I'm having a great time. It's a long weekend (Canadian Thanksgiving.) I discovered I've saved more money than I thought I had. Friends will be dropping by, shortly, and a six-pack of Heinekens is chilling in the freezer for 'em. I just choked down a delicious cold-cut subine samwich w/ green olives and slices of hot banana pepper in it. Whine? Perish the thought. Life is good. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 08 Oct 2006 06:21:02 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) writes: [Note how Keats carefully snipped the obvious lies he told - even he must know how ridiculous he is.] > In article <m3hcyf5vk5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >> Hit a nerve, did I? > > > > Nope, you just made yourself look like an idiot. You post lie after > > lie, > > Yeah, it's a conspiracy against specifically you. > You know the Ultimate Truth, and we must stop you > from conveying it. It's all our fault & design > that nobody understands your POV. Sorta like > the X Files. How lame. > generally act like a child, and then whine when anyone points > > out your infantile behavior. > > Actually I'm having a great time. It's a long weekend > (Canadian Thanksgiving.) I discovered I've saved more > money than I thought I had. Friends will be dropping by, > shortly, and a six-pack of Heinekens is chilling in the > freezer for 'em. I just choked down a delicious cold-cut > subine samwich w/ green olives and slices of hot banana > pepper in it. Whine? Perish the thought. > > Life is good. And you think anyone believes you? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 07 Oct 2006 21:44:43 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m3hcyf5vk5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m3r6xl58an.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> > >> >> In article <451fcddb$0$96177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, >> >> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes: >> >> >>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or >> >> >>>> merely delusional. >> >> >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >> >> >>> while you're out driving your stoopid car. >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some >> >> >> meds, the better. >> >> > >> >> > Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most >> >> > of us have done. >> >> >> >> You helmet zealots are too much. >> >> But then, you car worshippers are too much, too. >> >> Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear >> >> helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort. >> > >> > Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet, and I >> > certainly don't worship cars (nor computers, nor any other product I >> > might need) and would assume that Steven doesn't either. >> > >> > Posting such rubbish really makes you look like an idiot. >> >> <wiping a drop of Bill Z's indignant spittle outa my eye> >> >> Hit a nerve, did I? > > Nope, you just made yourself look like an idiot. You post lie after > lie, generally act like a child, and then whine when anyone points > out your infantile behavior. > -- -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca   Date: 07 Oct 2006 19:30:31 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m38xjrk1s9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m3ac479ae5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> > >> >> In article <m3ejtt3vus.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> >> >> >> Actually, just for you, I /am/ acting like an adult. >> >> Acting exactly like you, ya Nazi-moron-liar. >> > >> > You are delusional, not to mention dishonest. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Of course I am. So are you. So is everybody >> with a world view or belief system. >> > > No - you are delusional, not to mention dishonest, > just as I said. If you say so. Yeah, sure. Everything's okay. Just calm down, and take deep breaths, And let the nice man lead you down the hallway. Ahhhh. Isn't that nice & peaceful? G'night. Don't let the bedbugs bite. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 08 Oct 2006 03:38:05 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m38xjrk1s9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> In article <m3ac479ae5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> > > >> >> In article <m3ejtt3vus.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > >> >> > >> >> Actually, just for you, I /am/ acting like an adult. > >> >> Acting exactly like you, ya Nazi-moron-liar. > >> > > >> > You are delusional, not to mention dishonest. > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> > >> Of course I am. So are you. So is everybody > >> with a world view or belief system. > >> > > > > No - you are delusional, not to mention dishonest, > > just as I said. > > If you say so. Yes, I say so. <rest of this infant's garbage snipped >   Date: 07 Oct 2006 19:18:11 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <451fcddb$0$96177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > writes: > Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most of us ^^^^^^^^^^ > have done. Yikes! Kill-file wars! Reminds me of the classic flick: "Harvey" (starring Jimmy Stewart) in which everybody is so busy talking, they don't take the time to listen to one another. No doubt I'm plentily kill-filed. Especially by up-tight righties who sell battery-powered bike lights or glorified coffee makers. And maybe by people who frown upon sensuality, frivolity, and enjoying & sharing with others the natural pleasures of this world. I expect that's what you mean by "most of us." Y'know, you're probably pretty kill-filed, yourself. cheers, & kill-filed (but at least not cut-off) Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca   Date: 07 Oct 2006 18:52:09 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m3r6xl58an.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <451fcddb$0$96177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, >> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes: >> >>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or >> >>>> merely delusional. >> >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >> >>> while you're out driving your stoopid car. >> >> >> >> I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some >> >> meds, the better. >> > >> > Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most >> > of us have done. >> >> You helmet zealots are too much. >> But then, you car worshippers are too much, too. >> Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear >> helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort. > > Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet, and I > certainly don't worship cars (nor computers, nor any other product I > might need) and would assume that Steven doesn't either. > > Posting such rubbish really makes you look like an idiot. <wiping a drop of Bill Z's indignant spittle outa my eye > Hit a nerve, did I? -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 08 Oct 2006 03:36:42 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m3r6xl58an.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> In article <451fcddb$0$96177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes: > >> >>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or > >> >>>> merely delusional. > >> >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > >> >>> while you're out driving your stoopid car. > >> >> > >> >> I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some > >> >> meds, the better. > >> > > >> > Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most > >> > of us have done. > >> > >> You helmet zealots are too much. > >> But then, you car worshippers are too much, too. > >> Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear > >> helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort. > > > > Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet, and I > > certainly don't worship cars (nor computers, nor any other product I > > might need) and would assume that Steven doesn't either. > > > > Posting such rubbish really makes you look like an idiot. > > <wiping a drop of Bill Z's indignant spittle outa my eye> > > Hit a nerve, did I? Nope, you just made yourself look like an idiot. You post lie after lie, generally act like a child, and then whine when anyone points out your infantile behavior. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 07 Oct 2006 18:33:24 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m3ac479ae5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m3ejtt3vus.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> > >> >> Keep on a-wrigglin' & a-squirmin'. It just goes to show >> >> what you pro-helmet zealot, car-driving, Nazi-Moron-Liars >> >> are all about -- viz: greedy, selfish piggishness. >> >> >> >> Oink, oink. >> > >> > Are you still in elementary school? >> >> Why do you have such an interest in elementary school students? > > Let's just say that I wish that the parents of certain elementary > school students would monitor their children's use of computers more > carefully. > >> >> Please try to not run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >> >> while you're out, driving your stoopid car. >> > >> > Please try to act like an adult, even if that is difficult >> > for you. >> >> Actually, just for you, I /am/ acting like an adult. >> Acting exactly like you, ya Nazi-moron-liar. > > You are delusional, not to mention dishonest. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Of course I am. So are you. So is everybody with a world view or belief system. But I don't foist my delusions on other people. I like people. I don't wanna persuade 'em to my will. Let 'em wear helmets if they want; let 'em not wear helmets if they don't wanna. But let the people know what to expect of their glorified styrofoam egg cartons (and what not to.) > <rest of this moron's post snipped>. Truth is so elusive. And you aid & abet its escape. You're so abundant with your ad-hominae. In a word, you're an insufferable asshole. But I forgive you. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 08 Oct 2006 01:58:29 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m3ac479ae5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> In article <m3ejtt3vus.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > >> > >> Actually, just for you, I /am/ acting like an adult. > >> Acting exactly like you, ya Nazi-moron-liar. > > > > You are delusional, not to mention dishonest. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Of course I am. So are you. So is everybody > with a world view or belief system. > No - you are delusional, not to mention dishonest, just as I said. > You're so abundant with your ad-hominae. > In a word, you're an insufferable asshole. > But I forgive you. Projection. You really need some professional help. The word "hypocrite" comes to mind as well. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 07 Oct 2006 15:57:55 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! di wrote: > How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of wasted > time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy You should understand, some people care enough about cycling to counter the anti-cycling hype, and to fight those who would take away the second choice you proposed. You're not required to join the fight. You're not even required to learn about the issue. So it's even simpler, di: either read the threads if you're interested, or don't read them if you're not. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:33:24 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > di wrote: > > How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of wasted > > time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy > > You should understand, some people care enough about cycling to counter > the anti-cycling hype, and to fight those who would take away the > second choice you proposed. > > You're not required to join the fight. You're not even required to > learn about the issue. > > So it's even simpler, di: either read the threads if you're interested, > or don't read them if you're not. > The reality is that Krygowski has been on his anti-helmet campaign for a good 15 years or more. If he wanted you to make your own decision, he wouldn't be arguing with me about it (as I'v never told anyone to not make their own decision). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:32:10 From: ilaboo Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! i understand recent medical studies have shown tht cycles who wear helmits have more serious injuries than does who dont--question are cycles who wear helmets taking more chances than does who doiont?--i sort of think so at least from what i see here in ny "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:87wt77edci.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >> di wrote: >> > How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of >> > wasted >> > time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy >> >> You should understand, some people care enough about cycling to counter >> the anti-cycling hype, and to fight those who would take away the >> second choice you proposed. >> >> You're not required to join the fight. You're not even required to >> learn about the issue. >> >> So it's even simpler, di: either read the threads if you're interested, >> or don't read them if you're not. >> > > The reality is that Krygowski has been on his anti-helmet campaign > for a good 15 years or more. If he wanted you to make your own > decision, he wouldn't be arguing with me about it (as I'v never > told anyone to not make their own decision). > > > -- > My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB         Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:10:22 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! "ilaboo" <rlener@verizon.net > writes: > i understand recent medical studies have shown tht cycles who wear helmits > have more serious injuries than does who dont--question are cycles who wear > helmets taking more chances than does who doiont?--i sort of think so at > least from what i see here in ny You mean the people who are "serious" enough about it to get in good enough shape to get up very steep hills, which are then descended at a high rate of speed (most of these individuals wear helmets, if only because their friends do) tend to have worse accidents than "grandma" does when riding around the block on quiet streets? While serious cyclists certainly have a much higher skill level than "grandma", they ride a lot more as well. All you found out is that people who ride a lot tend to use helmets and can also handle more difficult conditions. With the increased skill levels, they have a low accident rate but when accidents do occur, the accidents can be much worse due to the higher speeds and more difficult traffic conditions. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 07 Oct 2006 15:51:58 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement > > like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury." > <snip> > > Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Well, nobody who wants to promote helmet use worries about it, that's for sure! > Your "helmet promotional material" is > probably just advertising, :-) Wrong again, Bill. Oddly enough, I don't recall ever seeing such a statement in an advertisement. No, that statement is used instead by people promoting helmets. These are people who feel a need to scare others into using the products they favor, even if it scares people away from bicycling. Admittedly, many of them are truly altruistic; they've bought the distortions fed to them by others, and feel it's their mission in life to save others from dangers. Even imaginary ones. > and IMHO anyone who believes advertising > is such a fool that they probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway. So, people you define as fools should not ride bikes? Is there anyone else your lordship would like to exclude? Personally, I believe in promoting cycling, not restricting it. > > This is an attempt to convince people that bicycling produces many more > > head injuries than other activities. It is an attempt to scare people > > into wearing helmets. > > No, Krygowski, it is probably simply a factoid that someone thought > would help encourage the sale of a product. That's what advertising > is supposed to do. Spoken with spectacular ignorance. As explained in another post, the examples I gave did NOT come from advertising. So you are wrong yet again. If you had any shame at all, you'd simply stop posting. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 08 Oct 2006 00:34:11 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement > > > like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury." > > <snip> > > > > Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. > > Well, nobody who wants to promote helmet use worries about it, that's > for sure! Nobody except you and a few other usenet kooks care either. > > Your "helmet promotional material" is > > probably just advertising, > > :-) Wrong again, Bill. Oddly enough, I don't recall ever seeing such > a statement in an advertisement. > No, that statement is used instead by people promoting helmets. These > are people who feel a need to scare others into using the products they > favor, even if it scares people away from bicycling. Getting people to "[use] the products" is, err, part of "advertising". If nobody will use it, you won't sell it. > > and IMHO anyone who believes advertising is such a fool that they > > probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway. > > So, people you define as fools should not ride bikes? Is there anyone > else your lordship would like to exclude? Hit a nerve, haven't I. Of course, the comment was really that anyone that dumb shouldn't ride bikes because they would obviously lack the mental capacity needed to operate one safely. They shouldn't drive cars either. > Personally, I believe in promoting cycling, not restricting it. Even to people who lack the mental capacity needed to ride one with a reasonable level of safely? > > No, Krygowski, it is probably simply a factoid that someone thought > > would help encourage the sale of a product. That's what advertising > > is supposed to do. > > Spoken with spectacular ignorance. As explained in another post, the > examples I gave did NOT come from advertising. > > So you are wrong yet again. If you had any shame at all, you'd simply > stop posting. Projection - Krygowski always makes mountains out of molehills and then gets self-righteous when has behavior is pointed out. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 07 Oct 2006 15:33:42 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > Where I live there are "public service" announcements on > > the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent > > 88% of head injuries. > > I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't > know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn > thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I > gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements. Bill's introduced an Interesting debate technique: saying "I'm ignorant, so you must be wrong." I have repeatedly seen such false helmet-promotion statements, in newspaper articles, in helmet promotional pamplets, in web pages, and in testimonial materials provided to legislators. You may choose to go through life ignoring all media, if you like. But the resulting ignorance does NOT work as proof. What you don't know about can certainly exist! - Frank Krygowski     Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:30:54 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > > > Where I live there are "public service" announcements on > > > the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent > > > 88% of head injuries. > > > > I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't > > know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn > > thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I > > gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements. > > Bill's introduced an Interesting debate technique: saying "I'm > ignorant, so you must be wrong." First, to correct my reply to JTaylor, I inadvertently typed your name. But other than that, since when is putting up with loud, obnoxious, "screaming idiot" advertising a requirement to particpate in any discussion. Does Krygowski have a problem with (gasp) reading or talking to people? > I have repeatedly seen such false helmet-promotion statements, in > newspaper articles, in helmet promotional pamplets, in web pages, and > in testimonial materials provided to legislators. > > You may choose to go through life ignoring all media, if you like. But > the resulting ignorance does NOT work as proof. What you don't know > about can certainly exist! Krygowski, dishonest as ever, is trying to deflect the fact that the *local police force* is not putting this stuff out around here. He says one thing and then when called on it, he pretends he was talking about something else. It is his typical "debating" tactic, and one of the reasons I have no respect for him. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 07 Oct 2006 15:22:20 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > >> On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Bill Z. wrote: > >> >> Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: > >> >So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't > >> >helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? > >> > > >> > >> Indeed. > >> > >> And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and > >> pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do > >> anything to wriggle out of answering. > > > >More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory > >helmet laws > > False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL. In this matter, one other poster has asked you, "Are you really this stupid?" I'll add to the growing chorus: are you really this stupid? Or are you just being deceptive? Which is it: Stupid? or Deceptive?     Date: 07 Oct 2006 22:27:46 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On 7 Oct 2006 15:22:20 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) >> wrote: >> >> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: >> > >> >> On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Bill Z. wrote: >> >> >> Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: >> >> >So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't >> >> >helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? >> >> > >> >> >> >> Indeed. >> >> >> >> And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and >> >> pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do >> >> anything to wriggle out of answering. >> > >> >More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory >> >helmet laws >> >> False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL. > >In this matter, one other poster has asked you, "Are you really this >stupid?" I'll add to the growing chorus: are you really this stupid? Or >are you just being deceptive? > >Which is it: > >Stupid? > >or > >Deceptive? Are you or are you not in favour of an MHL that forces me to wear a helmet?   Date: 06 Oct 2006 13:47:55 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m3ejtt3vus.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m3wt7l3za3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> >> >> Ssshhhhhh. Don't worry. Everything's gonna be all right. >> >> Everybody's gonna wear helmets, just like you want. >> >> There are no enemies, only friends who smile & nod and >> >> agree with you. >> >> >> >> Good night, sleep tight. Don't let the Nazis bite. >> >> >> > >> > Keats sure made a fool of himself. >> >> Yup, he sure did. >> >> Keep on a-wrigglin' & a-squirmin'. It just goes to show >> what you pro-helmet zealot, car-driving, Nazi-Moron-Liars >> are all about -- viz: greedy, selfish piggishness. >> >> Oink, oink. > > Are you still in elementary school? Why do you have such an interest in elementary school students? >> Please try to not run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >> while you're out, driving your stoopid car. > > Please try to act like an adult, even if that is difficult > for you. Actually, just for you, I /am/ acting like an adult. Acting exactly like you, ya Nazi-moron-liar. Maybe you should be something more like a child -- without a bellyful of prejudice & hatred & bile. 'cuz if being an adult means being such a bitter, dour, objectionable, cantankerous ol' helmet zealot crank as yourself, I'd just as soon jump off a bridge and be done with it. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 07 Oct 2006 19:48:01 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m3ejtt3vus.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> Keep on a-wrigglin' & a-squirmin'. It just goes to show > >> what you pro-helmet zealot, car-driving, Nazi-Moron-Liars > >> are all about -- viz: greedy, selfish piggishness. > >> > >> Oink, oink. > > > > Are you still in elementary school? > > Why do you have such an interest in elementary school students? Let's just say that I wish that the parents of certain elementary school students would monitor their children's use of computers more carefully. > >> Please try to not run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > >> while you're out, driving your stoopid car. > > > > Please try to act like an adult, even if that is difficult > > for you. > > Actually, just for you, I /am/ acting like an adult. > Acting exactly like you, ya Nazi-moron-liar. You are delusional, not to mention dishonest. <rest of this moron's post snipped >. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 07 Oct 2006 13:32:05 From: Peter Keller Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:21:28 +0000, jtaylor wrote: > If so, as cyclists' deaths occur at a rate of roughly one per 450 > years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day (FRA figure), rate of death > from head injury must be less than one per 900 years of cycling 24 > hours a day (assuming that your "most" = the minimum possible value - > 51%). > > Of these, some small percentage (perhaps as low as zero) of head > deaths might have been reduced by cycle helmets to a less serious > injury, like permanent vegetative state etcetera. I question the assertion that "permanent vegetative state" is less serious than death. There remains, of > course, the probability that additional injuries occur due to the > wearing of cycle helmets; and so considering that, how can you claim > that helmets are "useful" when the magnitude of the effect they might > produce of the death rate of cyclists is essentially zero; and the other > effects (reduction of cycling rates, possibility of other trauma, > increase in the seriously maimed instead of dead) are negative? Peter     Date: 07 Oct 2006 14:01:40 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 13:32:05 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Keller" <muzh@ihug.co.nz > wrote: >On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:21:28 +0000, jtaylor wrote: > > >> If so, as cyclists' deaths occur at a rate of roughly one per 450 >> years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day (FRA figure), rate of death >> from head injury must be less than one per 900 years of cycling 24 >> hours a day (assuming that your "most" = the minimum possible value - >> 51%). >> >> Of these, some small percentage (perhaps as low as zero) of head >> deaths might have been reduced by cycle helmets to a less serious >> injury, like permanent vegetative state etcetera. > >I question the assertion that "permanent vegetative state" is less serious >than death. > Indeed. Certainly from the point of view of public health it adds to the costs resulting from helmet use... > There remains, of >> course, the probability that additional injuries occur due to the >> wearing of cycle helmets; and so considering that, how can you claim >> that helmets are "useful" when the magnitude of the effect they might >> produce of the death rate of cyclists is essentially zero; and the other >> effects (reduction of cycling rates, possibility of other trauma, >> increase in the seriously maimed instead of dead) are negative? > ...as alluded to above.   Date: 07 Oct 2006 06:11:51 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: > > <snip> > > The widely quoted lore "most*) bicyclists deaths are caused by a brain > > injury" is a Lie of Omission. In itself, it's true, But it derives its > > scare from hiding the fact that this statement applies to _all_ traffic > > deaths, too. In actual fact, it even applies to _all_ accidental > > deaths. (from the same texbook) about 60 % of all accidental fatalities > > involve a deadly injury of the brain. > > Which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether helmets are > useful or not (and keep in mind that most bicycle accidents are not > fatal, so an argument based on fatalities in this context is really a > red herring). The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury." This is an attempt to convince people that bicycling produces many more head injuries than other activities. It is an attempt to scare people into wearing helmets. And it's as disingenuous as a political campaign ad. Even if it is true of cycling (and there's doubt), it's equally true of motoring or, indeed, _all_ accidental deaths. So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? Why make _bicycling_ sound especially dangerous? Hope that helps you remember the point, Bill. ;-) - Frank Krygowski     Date: 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: > > > > <snip> > > > The widely quoted lore "most*) bicyclists deaths are caused by a brain > > > injury" is a Lie of Omission. In itself, it's true, But it derives its > > > scare from hiding the fact that this statement applies to _all_ traffic > > > deaths, too. In actual fact, it even applies to _all_ accidental > > > deaths. (from the same texbook) about 60 % of all accidental fatalities > > > involve a deadly injury of the brain. > > > > Which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether helmets are > > useful or not (and keep in mind that most bicycle accidents are not > > fatal, so an argument based on fatalities in this context is really a > > red herring). > > The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement > like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury." <snip > Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Your "helmet promotional material" is probably just advertising, and IMHO anyone who believes advertising is such a fool that they probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway. > This is an attempt to convince people that bicycling produces many more > head injuries than other activities. It is an attempt to scare people > into wearing helmets. No, Krygowski, it is probably simply a factoid that someone thought would help encourage the sale of a product. That's what advertising is supposed to do. If you don't like it, start ranting about this country's "Advertizing ueber alles" culture. What you are complaining about is no different than "Brand X toothpaste" fights cavities better than Brand Y (even though the only difference between Brand X and Brand Y is a logo). > Hope that helps you remember the point, Bill. ;-) You have no point, Krygowski - you are simply making a fool of yourself. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 07 Oct 2006 20:08:24 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >> > Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: >> > >> > <snip> >> > > The widely quoted lore "most*) bicyclists deaths are caused by a brain >> > > injury" is a Lie of Omission. In itself, it's true, But it derives its >> > > scare from hiding the fact that this statement applies to _all_ traffic >> > > deaths, too. In actual fact, it even applies to _all_ accidental >> > > deaths. (from the same texbook) about 60 % of all accidental fatalities >> > > involve a deadly injury of the brain. >> > >> > Which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether helmets are >> > useful or not (and keep in mind that most bicycle accidents are not >> > fatal, so an argument based on fatalities in this context is really a >> > red herring). >> >> The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement >> like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury." ><snip> > >Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Your "helmet promotional material" is >probably just advertising, Nonsense. Where I live there are "public service" announcements on the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent 88% of head injuries. > and IMHO anyone who believes advertising >is such a fool that they probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway. > That might well be the goal.         Date: 07 Oct 2006 22:05:51 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > >> Bill Z. wrote: > >> > Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: > >Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Your "helmet promotional material" is > >probably just advertising, > > Nonsense. Where I live there are "public service" announcements on > the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent > 88% of head injuries. I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements. Given everything else you've posted, however, I really don't believe a word you say - you have zero credibility as I've caught you obviously lying about various people during this discussion. > > and IMHO anyone who believes advertising is such a fool that they > >probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway. > > > > That might well be the goal. In your case, I'd advise against getting out of bed too. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 07 Oct 2006 22:25:56 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:05:51 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) >> wrote: >> >> >frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >> > >> >> Bill Z. wrote: >> >> > Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: >> >Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Your "helmet promotional material" is >> >probably just advertising, >> >> Nonsense. Where I live there are "public service" announcements on >> the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent >> 88% of head injuries. > >I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't >know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn >thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I >gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements. > There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.             Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:25:42 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:05:51 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > >> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > > > >I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't > >know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn > >thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I > >gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements. > > > > There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. Krygowski apparently has such limited reading skills that he is dependent on people reading the newspapers to him, and then he imagines what must be in them. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB     Date: 07 Oct 2006 14:05:15 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >Bill Z. wrote: >> Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: >> >> <snip> >> > The widely quoted lore "most*) bicyclists deaths are caused by a brain >> > injury" is a Lie of Omission. In itself, it's true, But it derives its >> > scare from hiding the fact that this statement applies to _all_ traffic >> > deaths, too. In actual fact, it even applies to _all_ accidental >> > deaths. (from the same texbook) about 60 % of all accidental fatalities >> > involve a deadly injury of the brain. >> >> Which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether helmets are >> useful or not (and keep in mind that most bicycle accidents are not >> fatal, so an argument based on fatalities in this context is really a >> red herring). > >The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement >like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury." > >This is an attempt to convince people that bicycling produces many more >head injuries than other activities. It is an attempt to scare people >into wearing helmets. > >And it's as disingenuous as a political campaign ad. Even if it is >true of cycling (and there's doubt), it's equally true of motoring or, >indeed, _all_ accidental deaths. > >So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't >helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? > Indeed. And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do anything to wriggle out of answering. Were they to answer truthfully, it would expose the fallacy on which their pro-helmet/pro-MHL stance is based; they know this, and so do anything they can to distort statistis, divert the line of questioning, denegrate the questioner, and deny the truth.       Date: 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >Bill Z. wrote: > >> Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: > >So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't > >helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? > > > > Indeed. > > And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and > pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do > anything to wriggle out of answering. More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory helmet laws, and none of us are pushing people to use helmets. We are merely suggesting that they are useful enough that using one is a reasonble choice for people to make. There is nothing to "wriggle out of" as we never made the claim Taylor claims. If Taylor and Krygowski want to wear helmets while walking or jogging, that's fine by me - it is, after all, their decision. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB         Date: 07 Oct 2006 20:06:29 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >> On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > >> >Bill Z. wrote: >> >> Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: >> >So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't >> >helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? >> > >> >> Indeed. >> >> And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and >> pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do >> anything to wriggle out of answering. > >More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory >helmet laws False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL. The rest know that such a position would be unpopular, and hence have been careful to claim that they are anti-MHL for themselves - Sornson, for instance has no trouble with the MHL in his state because he happens to be exempt.           Date: 07 Oct 2006 22:08:31 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > >> On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Bill Z. wrote: > >> >> Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: > >> >So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't > >> >helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? > >> > > >> > >> Indeed. > >> > >> And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and > >> pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do > >> anything to wriggle out of answering. > > > >More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory > >helmet laws > > False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL. What are you babbling about? I don't even remember seeing a post from "Ozark" so he couldn't have said very much. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB             Date: 07 Oct 2006 22:25:00 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:08:31 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) >> wrote: >> >> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: >> > >> >> On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Bill Z. wrote: >> >> >> Wolfgang Strobl <news2@mystrobl.de> writes: >> >> >So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't >> >> >helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.? >> >> > >> >> >> >> Indeed. >> >> >> >> And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and >> >> pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do >> >> anything to wriggle out of answering. >> > >> >More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory >> >helmet laws >> >> False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL. > >What are you babbling about? I don't even remember seeing a post >from "Ozark" so he couldn't have said very much. Look for this in Google groups: "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced"               Date: 08 Oct 2006 00:37:51 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:08:31 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > > > >What are you babbling about? I don't even remember seeing a post > >from "Ozark" so he couldn't have said very much. > > Look for this in Google groups: > > "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced" Oh, you mean the wiseass who suggested that you personally (and only you) should be requried to wear a helmet? He was joking, you moron! It was a case of letting the punishment fit the crime. You know, like in _The Mikado_, where the Mikado expresses his desire to make billiard sharks play with a twisted que and elliptical billiard balls. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 06 Oct 2006 12:54:56 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <451fcddb$0$96177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> >>> In article <m3r6xt3z36.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>> >>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or >>>> merely delusional. >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >>> while you're out driving your stoopid car. >> >> I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some >> meds, the better. > > Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most of us > have done. You helmet zealots are too much. But then, you car worshippers are too much, too. Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 06 Oct 2006 23:34:45 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <451fcddb$0$96177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes: > >>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or > >>>> merely delusional. > >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > >>> while you're out driving your stoopid car. > >> > >> I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some > >> meds, the better. > > > > Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most > > of us have done. > > You helmet zealots are too much. > But then, you car worshippers are too much, too. > Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear > helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort. Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet, and I certainly don't worship cars (nor computers, nor any other product I might need) and would assume that Steven doesn't either. Posting such rubbish really makes you look like an idiot. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 07 Oct 2006 11:10:34 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:34:45 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <451fcddb$0$96177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, >> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes: >> >>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or >> >>>> merely delusional. >> >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >> >>> while you're out driving your stoopid car. >> >> >> >> I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some >> >> meds, the better. >> > >> > Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most >> > of us have done. >> >> You helmet zealots are too much. >> But then, you car worshippers are too much, too. >> Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear >> helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort. > >Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet, There are more than two pro-helmet zealots posting on these newsgroups. And some of them have posted that they are perfectly happy with MHL's - as long as they apply to other people.         Date: 07 Oct 2006 19:22:41 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:34:45 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> In article <451fcddb$0$96177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes: > >> >>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or > >> >>>> merely delusional. > >> >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > >> >>> while you're out driving your stoopid car. > >> >> > >> >> I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some > >> >> meds, the better. > >> > > >> > Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most > >> > of us have done. > >> > >> You helmet zealots are too much. > >> But then, you car worshippers are too much, too. > >> Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear > >> helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort. > > > >Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet, > > There are more than two pro-helmet zealots posting on these > newsgroups. Keats was responding to posts from Steven Sharf and me, neither of which are "pro-helmet zealots" as neither of us has demanded that others wear helmets. I don't recall anyone else demanding that either. > And some of them have posted that they are perfectly happy with MHL's > - as long as they apply to other people. Are you really that stupid? Someone simply posted a wisecrack suggesting that a particularly obnoxious poster, and no one else, be required to wear a helmet. It was obviously meant as a joke. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 07 Oct 2006 20:40:12 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:34:45 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) >> wrote: >> >>> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >>> >>>> In article <451fcddb$0$96177$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, >>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a >>>>>>>> bald-faced liar or merely delusional. >>>>>>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >>>>>>> while you're out driving your stoopid car. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some >>>>>> meds, the better. >>>>> >>>>> Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most >>>>> of us have done. >>>> >>>> You helmet zealots are too much. >>>> But then, you car worshippers are too much, too. >>>> Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear >>>> helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort. >>> >>> Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet, >> >> There are more than two pro-helmet zealots posting on these >> newsgroups. > > Keats was responding to posts from Steven Sharf and me, neither of > which are "pro-helmet zealots" as neither of us has demanded that > others > wear helmets. I don't recall anyone else demanding that either. > >> And some of them have posted that they are perfectly happy with MHL's >> - as long as they apply to other people. > > Are you really that stupid? Someone simply posted a wisecrack > suggesting that a particularly obnoxious poster, and no one else, be > required to wear a helmet. It was obviously meant as a joke. Flailor, being one, doesn't /get/ jokes. HTH   Date: 03 Oct 2006 19:58:10 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: <snipped > > > Meantime, pardon me if I don't waste more of my time giving you > citations. > You mean your agenda driven, bogus citations? Thanks for smal favors! > - Frank Krygowski.... ....spends his time tilting with styrofoam windmills. What a pathetic joke.   Date: 03 Oct 2006 19:19:31 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > > If > > > you can't produce valid documentation, I simply won't believe you. > > > > Yes, it's true. You won't believe me if I don't produce valid > > documentation. > > Oh, so you have no documentation. Wrong. > > OTOH, you also won't believe me if I _do_ produce valid documentation. > > That's what's been going on here for many, many years. > > Another lie from Krygowski. Wrong again. I frequently provide data and documentation, with proper citations, web links if available, etc. > (In previous discussions, he'd cite some > paper that was either irrelevant, flawed, or misinterpretted and then > he'd complain when the problems with what he was saying were pointed > out.) Rather, you invent cockamamie reasons the data MUST be wrong. And, in almost every case, you do so without providing documentation or data of your own. I think any interested parties can scan back and see that what I say is true. Meantime, pardon me if I don't waste more of my time giving you citations. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 04 Oct 2006 05:32:23 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > > > > If > > > > you can't produce valid documentation, I simply won't believe you. > > > > > > Yes, it's true. You won't believe me if I don't produce valid > > > documentation. > > > > Oh, so you have no documentation. > > Wrong. If you had any documentation, you'd have provided it. > > > > OTOH, you also won't believe me if I _do_ produce valid documentation. > > > That's what's been going on here for many, many years. > > > > Another lie from Krygowski. > > Wrong again. I frequently provide data and documentation, with proper > citations, web links if available, etc. Actually, you very infrequently provide any data or any documentation, and rarely any proper citations. > > (In previous discussions, he'd cite some > > paper that was either irrelevant, flawed, or misinterpretted and then > > he'd complain when the problems with what he was saying were pointed > > out.) > > Rather, you invent cockamamie reasons the data MUST be wrong. And, in > almost every case, you do so without providing documentation or data of > your own. I think any interested parties can scan back and see that > what I say is true. Not true at all. First, Krygowski's "cockamamie reasons" simply refers to statements he can't refute, or comments about obvious shortcomings in the studies he like to quote (like one he cited regarding helmet effectiveness that didn't even have any data about which cyclists who had accidents wore helmets and which didn't), and where they had to make a number of assumptions as a result. Second, I have provided a number of citations (usually ignored). Third, Krygowski will simply try counting numbers of posts including ones in which I told people off for being rude - you know, the sort who "see red" whenever anyone suggests that using a helmet a reasonable personal decision for someone to make. > > Meantime, pardon me if I don't waste more of my time giving you > citations. (Because he has none to back up the claim he made.) Note too how Krygowski quietly snipped the context of where this discussion started - Message ID <1159842960.545428.273500@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com > where Krygwoski made a number of claims about Bell Helmets and Safe Kids, none of which he has been able to document. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 04 Oct 2006 17:12:57 From: Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:m3odssve97.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >> Wrong again. I frequently provide data and documentation, with proper >> citations, web links if available, etc. > > Actually, you very infrequently provide any data or any documentation, > and rarely any proper citations. Data up the wazoo, citations up the ying-yang. As to facts, however, a plethora of paucity.   Date: 03 Oct 2006 12:08:40 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > Cathy Kearns wrote: > > >.... Note, she was > > riding in black in the dark with no lights, and to compound things she was > > riding on the wrong side of the street. This is California, I'm an adult, > > and she was doing at least two illegal and dangerous things, but because of > > helmet advocates, she felt she had to give me a bad time. > > Yet many of the organizations that advocate helmets often are advocating > lights as well. That may be true now. After roughly 15 years of "bike safety equals wear a helmet," there has been some dim awakening that other things are also important. (I was heartened when our local Safe Kids president eventually told me "You're right, Frank; there's a lot more to bike safety than I thought.") But many organizations _still_ mention the helmet first, still claim it's _the_most important thing, and still give only passing attention to riding on the right, lights at night, watching the road surface for hazards, obeying traffic laws, etc. And many organizations still take pains to make cycling sound terribly dangerous. > Certainly every new bicycle comes with a warning to use > lights at night. I'd blame the cyclists for being stupid for not using > common sense, not using good lights, and riding on the wrong side of the > street, rather than the helmet advocacy organizations. Yes, Cathy's friend should have known better. But if the energy used to promote helmets had been used to teach proper riding instead, Cathy's friend _would_ have known better! So yes, I do blame the helmet advocacy organizations for the results of their useless and distracting campaign. > > Last summer we went to Scandanavia, saw many, many people using bikes for > > transportation in Sweden and Denk. Not many wore helmets. (Helmets > > weren't even available for our bike rental in Copenhagen) Years ago went to > > Canton, streets filled with bicyclists. Again, no helmets. I gotta wonder > > if there is a correlation. See http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_9/181000/181029/8/preview/fietsen_preview.pdf - Frank Krygowski   Date: 03 Oct 2006 09:49:19 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Cathy Kearns wrote: > <obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message <snipped > > > Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion > > accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is > > that why you wear it? > > I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. Me, too. I asked the question out of genuine curiosity. <snipped >   Date: 03 Oct 2006 07:42:48 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > If > you can't produce valid documentation, I simply won't believe you. Yes, it's true. You won't believe me if I don't produce valid documentation. OTOH, you also won't believe me if I _do_ produce valid documentation. That's what's been going on here for many, many years. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 04 Oct 2006 00:00:30 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > If > > you can't produce valid documentation, I simply won't believe you. > > Yes, it's true. You won't believe me if I don't produce valid > documentation. Oh, so you have no documentation. > OTOH, you also won't believe me if I _do_ produce valid documentation. > That's what's been going on here for many, many years. Another lie from Krygowski. (In previous discussions, he'd cite some paper that was either irrelevant, flawed, or misinterpretted and then he'd complain when the problems with what he was saying were pointed out.) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 03 Oct 2006 07:39:05 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > > Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than > the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional > risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on > her risk per year. Oh, but wait! Safe Kids has told the world that the great majority of kids bike accidents happen within one mile of home! That could be true for people like Cathy, too! Why, it sounds like bicycling close to home is TERRIBLY hazardous!!! A magic helmet might be her only way to survive the Home-Centered Vortex of Danger!!! <sarcasm off now > > However, if Cathy's personal reason for using a helmet is "fashion", > that is her business and her business alone. Yes. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 03 Oct 2006 23:58:17 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than > > the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional > > risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on > > her risk per year. > > Oh, but wait! Safe Kids has told the world that the great majority of > kids bike accidents happen within one mile of home! That could be true > for people like Cathy, too! Why, it sounds like bicycling close to > home is TERRIBLY hazardous!!! A magic helmet might be her only way to > survive the Home-Centered Vortex of Danger!!! Krygowski, are you really that dumb? The fast majority of kids' bike accidents could easily happen within one mile of home because that is where they spend most of their time riding. Why on earth would you expect that to be true of Cathy? Is Krygowski pretending that "within one mile of home" means "no more than two miles per day"? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 02 Oct 2006 21:01:00 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! The Don Quixote of "wreck.bicycles" is on his hobby horse; watch as he tilts with styrofoam windmills! frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes, regarding Bell Sports hundreds of thousands of dollar donations to Safe Kids Inc., and Safe Kids lobbying for mandatory helmets: > > > > > Please be honest. Bell Helmets gets far more than advertising. > > > > Please stop lying, Krygowski - just what do you think that a small > > organization like "Safe Kids" could give Bell Helmets other than > > a little advertising? > > They could, and do, push for mandatory helmet laws. I know this partly > because their published information says so, and partly because Safe > Kids attempted (unsuccessfully) to recruit our bike club to lobby for > mandatory helmets in our state. > > I also know this because when I spoke before a legislative committee to > give them facts against helmet laws, many of the pro-law speakers were > Safe Kids activists. > > And I know this because their website urges visitors to "Learn about > the state and local laws that cover bike helmet use in your area by > using the tool to the right. Advocate for new or stronger legislation > and enforcement. > > And no, they don't want helmet laws only for kids. They do, however, > want to start with kids' laws, before adult laws. At least, that's > what their literature used to say. > > So Bell gives money to Safe Kids, then Safe Kids lobbies to mandate the > main product Bell Sports sells. > > Of course, they also spread the usual disinformation, the usual > exaggeration of the dangers of bicycling plus the usual exaggeration of > the efficacy of helmets: > > "Helmets can reduce the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 percent" > (Which study do you think that came from? And why has that figure > never been verified in any large population studies?) > > "Children are more likely to be injured on residential streets close to > home. The typical bicycle/motor vehicle crash occurs within 1 mile of > the bicyclist's home." (Horrors! Perhaps we should forbid riding > within a mile of home! ... or, alternately, just realize that that's > where kids ride!) > > "It's estimated that 75 percent of bicycle-related deaths among > children could be prevented with a bicycle helmet." (Well, _could_ be, > I suppose... perhaps in some other universe. That's certainly never > happened on this planet!) > > "In 2001, 134 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related > crashes." (Which is smaller by far than the number killed within cars, > or by drowning, or by walking near traffic...) > > > > By its donation of between $100,000 and $999,999 to Safe Kids Inc., > > > Bell got lobbyists in nearly every state actively trying to convince > > > lawmakers to mandate Bell's products. Safe Kids is one of the major > > > promoters of mandatory helmet laws in the USA. That's way beyond > > > "advertising." > > > > This is simply a bald-faced lie: any attempt to mandate Bell products > > would be opposed by all the other businesses selling similar products. > > Do you think that bothers Bell? If a kids MHL is introduced, who will > get the business? Giro? (Check who owns that company.) Louis Garneu? > Hardly. If Bell had anything to say on this matter, it would be "A > rising tide floats all helmets." > > > Also, Bell Helmets does not have any reason to fund Safe Kids to get > > lobbyists. Bell Helmets is perfectly capable of hiring its own, and > > by hiring its own, the company can determine exactly what those > > lobbyists do. > > :-) It _has_ hired its own. They work for Safe Kids. > > - Frank Krygowski   Date: 02 Oct 2006 19:36:00 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes, regarding Bell Sports hundreds of thousands of dollar donations to Safe Kids Inc., and Safe Kids lobbying for mandatory helmets: > > > Please be honest. Bell Helmets gets far more than advertising. > > Please stop lying, Krygowski - just what do you think that a small > organization like "Safe Kids" could give Bell Helmets other than > a little advertising? They could, and do, push for mandatory helmet laws. I know this partly because their published information says so, and partly because Safe Kids attempted (unsuccessfully) to recruit our bike club to lobby for mandatory helmets in our state. I also know this because when I spoke before a legislative committee to give them facts against helmet laws, many of the pro-law speakers were Safe Kids activists. And I know this because their website urges visitors to "Learn about the state and local laws that cover bike helmet use in your area by using the tool to the right. Advocate for new or stronger legislation and enforcement. And no, they don't want helmet laws only for kids. They do, however, want to start with kids' laws, before adult laws. At least, that's what their literature used to say. So Bell gives money to Safe Kids, then Safe Kids lobbies to mandate the main product Bell Sports sells. Of course, they also spread the usual disinformation, the usual exaggeration of the dangers of bicycling plus the usual exaggeration of the efficacy of helmets: "Helmets can reduce the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 percent" (Which study do you think that came from? And why has that figure never been verified in any large population studies?) "Children are more likely to be injured on residential streets close to home. The typical bicycle/motor vehicle crash occurs within 1 mile of the bicyclist's home." (Horrors! Perhaps we should forbid riding within a mile of home! ... or, alternately, just realize that that's where kids ride!) "It's estimated that 75 percent of bicycle-related deaths among children could be prevented with a bicycle helmet." (Well, _could_ be, I suppose... perhaps in some other universe. That's certainly never happened on this planet!) "In 2001, 134 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes." (Which is smaller by far than the number killed within cars, or by drowning, or by walking near traffic...) > > By its donation of between $100,000 and $999,999 to Safe Kids Inc., > > Bell got lobbyists in nearly every state actively trying to convince > > lawmakers to mandate Bell's products. Safe Kids is one of the major > > promoters of mandatory helmet laws in the USA. That's way beyond > > "advertising." > > This is simply a bald-faced lie: any attempt to mandate Bell products > would be opposed by all the other businesses selling similar products. Do you think that bothers Bell? If a kids MHL is introduced, who will get the business? Giro? (Check who owns that company.) Louis Garneu? Hardly. If Bell had anything to say on this matter, it would be "A rising tide floats all helmets." > Also, Bell Helmets does not have any reason to fund Safe Kids to get > lobbyists. Bell Helmets is perfectly capable of hiring its own, and > by hiring its own, the company can determine exactly what those > lobbyists do. :-) It _has_ hired its own. They work for Safe Kids. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 03 Oct 2006 15:07:03 From: Steven M. O'Neill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote: >If Bell had anything to say on this matter, it would be "A >rising tide floats all helmets." Good point. Styrofoam makes an excellent flotation device. -- Steven O'Neill steveo@panix.com mounting it lower than your head is recommended     Date: 03 Oct 2006 02:58:45 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes, regarding Bell Sports hundreds of thousands of dollar donations to Safe Kids Inc., and Safe Kids lobbying for mandatory helmets: > > > > > Please be honest. Bell Helmets gets far more than advertising. > > > > Please stop lying, Krygowski - just what do you think that a small > > organization like "Safe Kids" could give Bell Helmets other than > > a little advertising? > > They could, and do, push for mandatory helmet laws. I know this partly > because their published information says so, and partly because Safe > Kids attempted (unsuccessfully) to recruit our bike club to lobby for > mandatory helmets in our state. Mandatory helmet laws for adults or children or both? :-) Please provide a one-word answer (either "adults", "children", or "both") instead of a long diatribe. > > I also know this because when I spoke before a legislative committee to > give them facts against helmet laws, many of the pro-law speakers were > Safe Kids activists. How many, and were they representing "Safe Kids" or going on their own. > And I know this because their website urges visitors to "Learn about > the state and local laws that cover bike helmet use in your area by > using the tool to the right. Advocate for new or stronger legislation > and enforcement. > > And no, they don't want helmet laws only for kids. They do, however, > want to start with kids' laws, before adult laws. At least, that's > what their literature used to say. Why don't you produce a URL showing that - I didn't find much on the "Safe Kids" web site, but am not going to waste a lot of time looking just because you made a claim. > > So Bell gives money to Safe Kids, then Safe Kids lobbies to mandate the > main product Bell Sports sells. > > Of course, they also spread the usual disinformation, the usual > exaggeration of the dangers of bicycling plus the usual exaggeration of > the efficacy of helmets: Do they really? How about some proof (uncited quotes don't do it, so I'll snip those.) > > > By its donation of between $100,000 and $999,999 to Safe Kids Inc., > > > Bell got lobbyists in nearly every state actively trying to convince > > > lawmakers to mandate Bell's products. Safe Kids is one of the major > > > promoters of mandatory helmet laws in the USA. That's way beyond > > > "advertising." > > > > This is simply a bald-faced lie: any attempt to mandate Bell products > > would be opposed by all the other businesses selling similar products. > > Do you think that bothers Bell? If a kids MHL is introduced, who will > get the business? Giro? (Check who owns that company.) Louis Garneu? > Hardly. If Bell had anything to say on this matter, it would be "A > rising tide floats all helmets." A google search for "bicycle helmets K-t" produced a list of search results, with "Back Trails Jr." bicycle helmets prominently featured (they were being recalled for some reason). I guess they sell some Bell helmets too. > > Also, Bell Helmets does not have any reason to fund Safe Kids to get > > lobbyists. Bell Helmets is perfectly capable of hiring its own, and > > by hiring its own, the company can determine exactly what those > > lobbyists do. > > :-) It _has_ hired its own. They work for Safe Kids. Why don't you provide some documented proof of that - that Bell specifically subcontracted to Safe Kids to obtain the services of a lobbyist. If you can't produce valid documentation, I simply won't believe you. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 03 Oct 2006 11:50:58 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:58:45 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >> > frkrygow@gmail.com writes, regarding Bell Sports hundreds of thousands of dollar donations to Safe Kids Inc., and Safe Kids lobbying for mandatory helmets: >> > >> > > Please be honest. Bell Helmets gets far more than advertising. >> > >> > Please stop lying, Krygowski - just what do you think that a small >> > organization like "Safe Kids" could give Bell Helmets other than >> > a little advertising? >> >> They could, and do, push for mandatory helmet laws. I know this partly >> because their published information says so, and partly because Safe >> Kids attempted (unsuccessfully) to recruit our bike club to lobby for >> mandatory helmets in our state. > >Mandatory helmet laws for adults or children or both? :-) Please provide >a one-word answer (either "adults", "children", or "both") instead of >a long diatribe. Why does it matter? MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both.         Date: 04 Oct 2006 01:55:04 From: slim Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On 2006-10-03 07:50:58 -0400, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com said: > MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both. You have your opinion. -- - Slim         Date: 03 Oct 2006 23:41:28 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:58:45 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > >Mandatory helmet laws for adults or children or both? :-) Please provide > >a one-word answer (either "adults", "children", or "both") instead of > >a long diatribe. > > Why does it matter? > > MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both. The question is Krygowski's claim about Bell Helmets allegedly paying Safe Kids to lobby. BTW, yesterday I saw a college-aged guy fall off a bike. He was carrying something that might have swung into the front spokes, but whatever happened, he fell to the side, wasn't going fast, and didn't get seriously hurt - maybe at worst a few scratches. He wasn't wearing a helmet but didn't hit his head. Had he gone over the handlebars, do you think a helmet might have helped prevent or at least mitigate an injury? That's a simple yes/no question. Can you manage providing a simple yes/no answer? -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 04 Oct 2006 00:49:02 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:41:28 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:58:45 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) >> wrote: >> >> >frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >> > > >> >Mandatory helmet laws for adults or children or both? :-) Please provide >> >a one-word answer (either "adults", "children", or "both") instead of >> >a long diatribe. >> >> Why does it matter? >> >> MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both. > >The question is Krygowski's claim about Bell Helmets allegedly paying >Safe Kids to lobby. BTW, yesterday I saw a college-aged guy fall off >a bike. He was carrying something that might have swung into the >front spokes, but whatever happened, he fell to the side, wasn't going >fast, and didn't get seriously hurt - maybe at worst a few scratches. >He wasn't wearing a helmet but didn't hit his head. Had he gone over >the handlebars, do you think a helmet might have helped prevent or at >least mitigate an injury? That's a simple yes/no question. Can you >manage providing a simple yes/no answer? Why does it matter? Helmets are a bad idea, adults, children, college-aged guys, or all three.             Date: 04 Oct 2006 01:35:33 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:41:28 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:58:45 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > >> wrote: > >> > >> >frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >> > > > > >> >Mandatory helmet laws for adults or children or both? :-) Please provide > >> >a one-word answer (either "adults", "children", or "both") instead of > >> >a long diatribe. > >> > >> Why does it matter? > >> > >> MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both. > > > >The question is Krygowski's claim about Bell Helmets allegedly paying > >Safe Kids to lobby. BTW, yesterday I saw a college-aged guy fall off > >a bike. He was carrying something that might have swung into the > >front spokes, but whatever happened, he fell to the side, wasn't going > >fast, and didn't get seriously hurt - maybe at worst a few scratches. > >He wasn't wearing a helmet but didn't hit his head. Had he gone over > >the handlebars, do you think a helmet might have helped prevent or at > >least mitigate an injury? That's a simple yes/no question. Can you > >manage providing a simple yes/no answer? > > > Why does it matter? > > Helmets are a bad idea, adults, children, college-aged guys, or all > three. Read what I said. Krygowski made a claim and apparently cannot document it. I guess you anti-helmet zealots don't care about the accuracy of what you say. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 02 Oct 2006 14:32:22 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Cathy Kearns wrote: > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the > > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of > > your claims doubtful. > > I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my lycra > garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my > already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to meetings, > going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a mandatory > helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things instead. > This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the road. > > Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is that why you wear it?     Date: 04 Oct 2006 09:26:08 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 4 Oct 2006 05:51:07 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically > >> >> at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When > >> >> you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU. > >> > > >> >How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't > >> >produce any, eh? That's what I thought. > >> > > >> > >> It was more than one post. > >> > >> And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology > >> withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised. > > > >Wiggle, wiggle, you weasel. You have no evidence that I am pro-MHL, do > >you? But you are too much of a weasel to admit it. > > > > As I said, more than one post. > > If you claim that you were lying then, how can we know you are not > lying now, or at in other post you have made? > It was a post made in pointed sarcasm. And let me repeat it: I would love to see you (and only you) come under the jurisdiction of a strictly enforced Mandatory Helmet Law that carries time in the slammer for second time offenders. Clear enough? > I seem to recall some wierd posts you made claiming that someone else > had posted or emailed something, and you were upset with either the > content or the action; but this was subsequently shown to completely > untrue. Your recall is faulty. The situation was this: an RBT regular sent a private email to me which contained the contents of private emails between the sender and another RBT regular, as well as between the sender and another RBT regular who works for an East Coast bike shop. The guy from the LBS made some unkind comments about the other RBT regular. The sender was using those comments to slander the other RBT regular. I still have that email, and I'll gladly forward it to you. You can check the headers to verify authenticity. > Is this more of the same? Not even remotely. Now, no more wiggling, weasel. Produce the evidence that I am pro-MHL or STFU.       Date: 05 Oct 2006 09:50:50 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor Bill Z. wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > On 4 Oct 2006 18:29:01 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > > > > > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > >> On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > >> > > >> >In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life* ... > > >> So you _are_ pro-MHL. > > >If you believe that, you *are* an imbecile. > > >You're as stupid as the POTUS and I'm done with you. > > But you say so yourself. > > > You say repeatedly "I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law..." > > > > Now you also say that you don't want this law to apply to _you_; is > > that what you mean when you also claim you are "anti-MHL"? That MHL's > > are fine with you as long as they only apply to some people, and that > > you yourself are exempt? > > He doesn't want it to apply to "some people", but rather to one > person - you. In case you don't know, the word "people" is a plural > noun. :-) > > In your case, think of it as a sentence imposed by the Mikado, who > wanted to make the punishment fit the crime. Buy some tickets to > the next performance of it in your area if you don't get the > reference. Thanks for trying to clarify things, but, IMO, jtaylor is just being willfully obtuse. I do wonder what has led to this obsession he has with helmets and with seeing a MHL lurking under every rock. He seems even more obsessed with the subject than Krygowski is.       Date: 04 Oct 2006 17:08:20 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor On 4 Oct 2006 09:26:08 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On 4 Oct 2006 05:51:07 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >> >> > >> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >> On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically >> >> >> at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When >> >> >> you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU. >> >> > >> >> >How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't >> >> >produce any, eh? That's what I thought. >> >> > >> >> >> >> It was more than one post. >> >> >> >> And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology >> >> withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised. >> > >> >Wiggle, wiggle, you weasel. You have no evidence that I am pro-MHL, do >> >you? But you are too much of a weasel to admit it. >> > >> >> As I said, more than one post. >> >> If you claim that you were lying then, how can we know you are not >> lying now, or at in other post you have made? >> > >It was a post made in pointed sarcasm. And let me repeat it: I would >love to see you (and only you) come under the jurisdiction of a >strictly enforced Mandatory Helmet Law that carries time in the slammer >for second time offenders. Clear enough? > Well, no, really. Are you in favour of an MHL in my jurisdiction?         Date: 04 Oct 2006 17:12:57 From: Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:sjq7i21et9b7k8auqpghs8c2uj0c1vm29j@4ax.com... > > Are you in favour of an MHL in my jurisdiction? "Your" jurisdiction? Have you any delusions other than those of grandeur?     Date: 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! <obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1159824742.359228.280090@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > Cathy Kearns wrote: > > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > > > > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the > > > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of > > > your claims doubtful. > > > > I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my lycra > > garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my > > already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to meetings, > > going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a mandatory > > helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things instead. > > This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the road. > > > > > Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion > accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is > that why you wear it? I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. Often, in our lycra clad splendor, my husband and I go out and pedal through the hills with a group. He doesn't alway call duck. The helmet has kept me from getting scratched by low hanging branches. So in some cases it does help. If I'm out alone on my carbon fiber bike doing hills the helmet doesn't hurt, I'm already dressed in sporting clothes, so why not. And maybe if when I'm standing there taking a swig of water at the top of the hill and lose my balance it will help. So no downside. On the other hand, when I'm out on my town bike, on the way to a teacher's conference, a sporting event at the nearby university, a volunteer stint somewhere, or even just to the grocery store, the helmet does have a disadvantage. It gets my hair all sweaty and bumpy, where if I don't wear it I can arrive looking like I drove my car. (A convertible :-) ) And for those that poo poo the helmet does not make your head sweaty, well, your milage may vary. I picked up the town bike with a helmet, and rode it home the same speed I ride my errands. I wasn't sweaty, but my hair was a wet, tangled mess. I have since used the bike for many an trip without the helmet, and yes, I show up looking presentable. Now, you could say I'm reckless. The other night I rode with a friend and her daughter home from a dinner at my house. My friend's daughter had a front light, but not back light, and my friend didn't have any lights, just reflectors. I offered her a light from my old bike, but she didn't want it. So I figured if I rode with them cars would be able to see something. My friend was flabergasted that I was riding without a helmet. Note, she was riding in black in the dark with no lights, and to compound things she was riding on the wrong side of the street. This is California, I'm an adult, and she was doing at least two illegal and dangerous things, but because of helmet advocates, she felt she had to give me a bad time. I agree that MHL will probably not decrease the lycra clad sports enthusiasts. It probably also won't decrease the guys riding the wrong way on the sidewalks down busy streets with bikes too small for them just trying to get to work. (Not that they will start wearing helmets, whatever gets them there is what works for them.) It will decrease the folks using bikes for local errands, commuting, and such. People who use bikes to get somewhere, but still look presentable. On that ride back from the bikestore I rode through Stanford campus. Want to take a guess on how many students and teachers were wearing helmets? I saw one other person with a helmet, she was pulling a child in a trailer. My daughter and I were early for our tour of UC Santa Barbara and sat watching students ride to classes. It was then this daughter considered getting a bike again, once she hits 18. No, didn't see many helmets. I went to UC Davis. It was a looong time ago, but it was cool. Four years of an entire city biking. Can't say I ever noticed helmets on people not racing for that whole stint. Last summer we went to Scandanavia, saw many, many people using bikes for transportation in Sweden and Denk. Not many wore helmets. (Helmets weren't even available for our bike rental in Copenhagen) Years ago went to Canton, streets filled with bicyclists. Again, no helmets. I gotta wonder if there is a correlation.       Date: 03 Oct 2006 08:41:20 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Cathy Kearns wrote: > Now, you could say I'm reckless. The other night I rode with a friend and > her daughter home from a dinner at my house. My friend's daughter had a > front light, but not back light, and my friend didn't have any lights, just > reflectors. I offered her a light from my old bike, but she didn't want it. > So I figured if I rode with them cars would be able to see something. My > friend was flabergasted that I was riding without a helmet. Note, she was > riding in black in the dark with no lights, and to compound things she was > riding on the wrong side of the street. This is California, I'm an adult, > and she was doing at least two illegal and dangerous things, but because of > helmet advocates, she felt she had to give me a bad time. Yet many of the organizations that advocate helmets often are advocating lights as well. Certainly every new bicycle comes with a warning to use lights at night. I'd blame the cyclists for being stupid for not using common sense, not using good lights, and riding on the wrong side of the street, rather than the helmet advocacy organizations. There are lots of organizations that concentrate on a specific area of safety, rather than trying to cover a broader spectrum. > Last summer we went to Scandanavia, saw many, many people using bikes for > transportation in Sweden and Denk. Not many wore helmets. (Helmets > weren't even available for our bike rental in Copenhagen) Years ago went to > Canton, streets filled with bicyclists. Again, no helmets. I gotta wonder > if there is a correlation. I've bicycled in Canton (Guangzhou), Beijing, Wuxi, Shanghai, and other parts of China. There is a difference, at least in some of those cities, and it's not just the number of cyclists. The infrastructure for cyclists is much better, often with separated bike lanes, there were (at the time) fewer cars, and the pace of the bicycles was very slow. Also, the cyclists never would dream of not giving the right of way to a vehicle, even when the cyclist had the right of way. You could ride like that here too, but you'd take a lot longer to get where you're going. I.e., when commuting at night, if I use low intensity lighting, I am constantly yielding to vehicles that either don't see me at all, or they do see me but believe that I am going 5 MPH rather than 20 MPH. When I use good lighting (see http://bicyclelighting.com) I don't have any problem with vehicles not yielding, as they probably think that I'm on a motorcycle. The decrease in overall injury and death rates for helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists is small, since there are so few incidents in the first place. It's only when you look at the ER statistics, which are looking at the subset of cyclists involved in accidents serious enough to warrant an ER visit, that helmets have been proven to be effective. It's all a gamble as to whether you're going to be in that subset, and it's often totally out of your own control.       Date: 03 Oct 2006 15:16:10 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote: > ><obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message >news:1159824742.359228.280090@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >> Cathy Kearns wrote: >> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> > > >> > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the >> > > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of >> > > your claims doubtful. >> > >> > I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my >lycra >> > garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my >> > already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to >meetings, >> > going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a >mandatory >> > helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things >instead. >> > This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the >road. >> > > >> >> Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion >> accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is >> that why you wear it? > >I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation".         Date: 04 Oct 2006 10:39:11 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 4 Oct 2006 09:26:08 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> On 4 Oct 2006 05:51:07 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> >> On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically > >> >> >> at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When > >> >> >> you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU. > >> >> > > >> >> >How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't > >> >> >produce any, eh? That's what I thought. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> It was more than one post. > >> >> > >> >> And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology > >> >> withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised. > >> > > >> >Wiggle, wiggle, you weasel. You have no evidence that I am pro-MHL, do > >> >you? But you are too much of a weasel to admit it. > >> > > >> > >> As I said, more than one post. > >> > >> If you claim that you were lying then, how can we know you are not > >> lying now, or at in other post you have made? > >> > > > >It was a post made in pointed sarcasm. And let me repeat it: I would > >love to see you (and only you) come under the jurisdiction of a > >strictly enforced Mandatory Helmet Law that carries time in the slammer > >for second time offenders. Clear enough? > > > > Well, no, really. > > Are you in favour of an MHL in my jurisdiction? What part of "you (and only you)" don't you understand? How's it coming with producing the evdence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? What's that you say? You can't produce any? So it's just another fabrication from jtaylor. What a surprise!           Date: 04 Oct 2006 18:04:26 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor On 4 Oct 2006 10:39:11 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On 4 Oct 2006 09:26:08 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >> >> > >> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >> On 4 Oct 2006 05:51:07 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >> >> On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically >> >> >> >> at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When >> >> >> >> you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't >> >> >> >produce any, eh? That's what I thought. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> It was more than one post. >> >> >> >> >> >> And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology >> >> >> withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised. >> >> > >> >> >Wiggle, wiggle, you weasel. You have no evidence that I am pro-MHL, do >> >> >you? But you are too much of a weasel to admit it. >> >> > >> >> >> >> As I said, more than one post. >> >> >> >> If you claim that you were lying then, how can we know you are not >> >> lying now, or at in other post you have made? >> >> >> > >> >It was a post made in pointed sarcasm. And let me repeat it: I would >> >love to see you (and only you) come under the jurisdiction of a >> >strictly enforced Mandatory Helmet Law that carries time in the slammer >> >for second time offenders. Clear enough? >> > >> >> Well, no, really. >> >> Are you in favour of an MHL in my jurisdiction? > >What part of "you (and only you)" don't you understand? > So you are in favour of an MHL. Why then, are you so upset when I post the truth?         Date: 03 Oct 2006 21:40:00 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:rlv4i2t4i5tgr54jjf0eorj8butrer3hrh@4ax.com... > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" > <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote: > >I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. > > Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation". I'm riding the back of a tandem. I am much, much, much more likely to get hit by a low hanging branch than go over the handlebars. As for risk compensation, sitting on the back, with no control over steering, braking, or even shifting, I'm fairly sure I have no power over the "risk compensation" portion of the ride. But that did make me smile.:-)           Date: 03 Oct 2006 22:31:10 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:40:00 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote: > ><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >news:rlv4i2t4i5tgr54jjf0eorj8butrer3hrh@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" >> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. >> >> Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation". > >I'm riding the back of a tandem. I am much, much, much more likely to get >hit by a low hanging branch than go over the handlebars. As for risk >compensation, sitting on the back, with no control over steering, braking, >or even shifting, I'm fairly sure I have no power over the "risk >compensation" portion of the ride. But that did make me smile.:-) > Yes - but was your evaluation that for you individually "it doesn't hurt", or for the population in general? And in either case, did the fact that helmet-wearing and helmet laws put people off cycling (with the resultant increase in health care costs) enter into your evaluation?             Date: 04 Oct 2006 01:41:56 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:v2p5i2dk43mslqauto893n06u2dqovj2g8@4ax.com... > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:40:00 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" > <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > ><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > >news:rlv4i2t4i5tgr54jjf0eorj8butrer3hrh@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" > >> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. > >> > >> Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation". > > > >I'm riding the back of a tandem. I am much, much, much more likely to get > >hit by a low hanging branch than go over the handlebars. As for risk > >compensation, sitting on the back, with no control over steering, braking, > >or even shifting, I'm fairly sure I have no power over the "risk > >compensation" portion of the ride. But that did make me smile.:-) > > > > Yes - > > but was your evaluation that for you individually "it doesn't hurt", > or for the population in general? I'm not interested in putting a helmet on anyone but myself, so why would I even consider the population in general? They get to make their own decisions. > And in either case, did the fact that helmet-wearing and helmet laws > put people off cycling (with the resultant increase in health care > costs) enter into your evaluation? Why would it? Now I did evaluate the risks for my health, and thought the extra exercise I get running errands by bike would help my health enough to completely mitigate the slight chance of me getting hurt in such a way a helmet would make a difference. So given the choice the ride without a helmet and get exercise or take the car and get no exercise, I ride without the helmet. I must admit, if the choice was ride without a helmet, get exercise, but risk getting a ticket, I'd take the car.     Date: 03 Oct 2006 02:44:01 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com writes: > Cathy Kearns wrote: > > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > > > > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the > > > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of > > > your claims doubtful. > > > > I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my lycra > > garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my > > already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to meetings, > > going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a mandatory > > helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things instead. > > This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the road. > > > > > Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion > accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is > that why you wear it? Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on her risk per year. However, if Cathy's personal reason for using a helmet is "fashion", that is her business and her business alone. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 03 Oct 2006 11:57:25 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:44:01 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com writes: > >> Cathy Kearns wrote: >> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> > > >> > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the >> > > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of >> > > your claims doubtful. >> > >> > I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my lycra >> > garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my >> > already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to meetings, >> > going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a mandatory >> > helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things instead. >> > This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the road. >> > > >> >> Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion >> accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is >> that why you wear it? > >Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than >the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional >risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on >her risk per year. > True, but a person such as "Cathy" is probably using her cycle as nearly much as she would absent an MHL. It is thise people who might or might not use a cycle for utility tripos that we need to encourage. The great mass of those people do now, in the country which uses the most oil and produces the most oil-based pollutants, choose to drive a motorcar. If they were to switch to cycling, the total miles of cycle travel would swamp the relatively tiny amount performed by such enthusiasts as "Cathy". Helmets put people off cycling, and MHL's even more so. Aknowledging that they are really a fashion accessory is a good step in persuading the people who can make a difference rhat cycling is _not_ dangerous, and that a foam hat does not actually have magic powers and hence is not required.         Date: 03 Oct 2006 23:53:09 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:44:01 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com writes: > > > >> Cathy Kearns wrote: > >> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > >> > > > > > >Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than > >the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional > >risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on > >her risk per year. > > > > True, but a person such as "Cathy" is probably using her cycle as > nearly much as she would absent an MHL. It is thise people who might > or might not use a cycle for utility tripos that we need to encourage. That's probably why the mandatory helmet law in California excludes adults - in the letter I wrote opposing a mandatory helmet law for adults, I pointed out that we had a number of people who rode short distances on quiet residential streets to a nearby train station, followed by a 30 mile train ride to San Francisco, and that they were safer commuting that way regardless of whether they used a helmet due to train travel being so safe. But I didn't disparage helmets to make that point (and that probably made my letter seem a bit more credible to my elected representative). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 03 Oct 2006 21:50:46 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > But I didn't disparage helmets to make that point (and that probably > made my letter seem a bit more credible to my elected representative). That's the key to fighting MHLs. What some people don't realize is that they actually are aiding the pro-MHL lobby by using junk-science and irrelevant comparisons of other activities in their arguments against helmets. I think that (almost) everyone understands that while helmeted cyclists fare better in head-impact accidents than non-helmeted cyclists, the number of such accidents is sufficiently low that helmet laws are unnecessary.           Date: 04 Oct 2006 00:53:46 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:53:09 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:44:01 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) >> wrote: >> >> >obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com writes: >> > >> >> Cathy Kearns wrote: >> >> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> >> > > >> > >> >Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than >> >the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional >> >risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on >> >her risk per year. >> > >> >> True, but a person such as "Cathy" is probably using her cycle as >> nearly much as she would absent an MHL. It is thise people who might >> or might not use a cycle for utility tripos that we need to encourage. > >That's probably why the mandatory helmet law in California excludes >adults So far. It'll be pretty easy to pass a law requiring all cyclists to wear helmets when a) they've all grown up suffering under a law that required them to do so; and b) there are many fewer of them because those whop would have been cyclists gave it up due to the helmet law. In light of those two points, it's worth remembering that California passed the first of its helmet laws in 1987, just under 20 years ago.             Date: 04 Oct 2006 02:01:05 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:53:09 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:44:01 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > >> wrote: > >> > >> >obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com writes: > >> > > >> >> Cathy Kearns wrote: > >> >> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> >> > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than > >> >the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional > >> >risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on > >> >her risk per year. > >> > > >> > >> True, but a person such as "Cathy" is probably using her cycle as > >> nearly much as she would absent an MHL. It is thise people who might > >> or might not use a cycle for utility tripos that we need to encourage. > > > >That's probably why the mandatory helmet law in California excludes > >adults > > So far. > > It'll be pretty easy to pass a law requiring all cyclists to wear > helmets when > > a) they've all grown up suffering under a law that required them to do > so; and > > b) there are many fewer of them because those whop would have been > cyclists gave it up due to the helmet law. > > In light of those two points, it's worth remembering that California > passed the first of its helmet laws in 1987, just under 20 years ago. Reality - the law did not pass the first time it was introduced because it targeted everyone. The next year, a law was passed, but restricted to children. BTW the bicycle helmet law was passed in Jan 1, 1992 (according to <http://www.bikersrights.com/states/california/chron.html >). Your 1987 "helmet law" had nothing to do with bicycles. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB             Date: 04 Oct 2006 01:55:07 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:ja16i2dild1535cf5m7mamr5shh37jjv72@4ax.com... > >That's probably why the mandatory helmet law in California excludes > >adults > > So far. > > It'll be pretty easy to pass a law requiring all cyclists to wear > helmets when > > a) they've all grown up suffering under a law that required them to do > so; and > > b) there are many fewer of them because those who would have been > cyclists gave it up due to the helmet law. > > In light of those two points, it's worth remembering that California > passed the first of its helmet laws in 1987, just under 20 years ago. I'm not so sure. The college campuses I have visited/riden through in the last year (yes it was college tour season for my senior in high school) are brimming with students who have grown up in California under helmet laws, yet ride without helmets. For that matter, the local high school also has many students who ride without helmets, or helmets hanging from their handle bars, or even weirder, helmets sitting on their head but not buckled on. The little kids are wearing helmets, but the older kids start slacking about junior high or high school. My friend was mentioning her son was one of only two in his circle of friends that still wears his helmet, he's 15. So I'm not so sure those who've grown up wearing helmets will keep wearing helmets. As I mentioned earlier, my senior in high school stopped cycling, due to helmets, in junior high. She preferred to walk the mile and a half to school and home. Now school is much closer, but she drives. So you would think as an adult she wouldn't be the least interested in picking up cycling again, but wrong. She says she'd like a bike for college. But will pass on the helmet. So again, I'm not so sure those that have given up biking due to helmets won't go back when the helmets aren't necessary, especially when the age tend to merge with the entrance to University, where bikes are often the best form of transportation.     Date: 03 Oct 2006 00:08:53 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On 2 Oct 2006 14:32:22 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >Cathy Kearns wrote: >> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> > >> > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the >> > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of >> > your claims doubtful. >> >> I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my lycra >> garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my >> already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to meetings, >> going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a mandatory >> helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things instead. >> This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the road. >> > > >Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion >accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is >that why you wear it? Why shouldn't she? It's a more valid reason that any putative protective value.   Date: 02 Oct 2006 07:51:09 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > SMS wrote: > > > justin david wrote: > > > > > > The second problem is that people were asked in phone surveys how the > > helmet law affected their cycling. The response was that they were > > cycling less, or not at all, specifically due to the law. > > > > See the Robinson paper cited in my previous post. Your librarian can > > get you a copy. > > There was apparently a sudden dip right after the law went in followed > by a gradual recovery. Is this suprising? Apparently it _is_ surprising to some posters. But the "gradual recovery" is yet another misleading statement. Yes, cycling did eventually come up to its pre-law numbers - but that was many, many years later. That increase appears to be mostly a result of population growth. In other words, the number of cyclists is _still_ smaller than it would have been without the law. > > Also, there is a difference between a drop in the number of cyclists > and the drop in the number of cyclist-miles. Obviously. But if you're claiming the cyclist miles did NOT drop as a result of those laws, let's see your evidence. Not hand waving; evidence. > Someone who would ride > a few miles once a year (like some of my neighbors at an annual block > party) might well decide that a helmet purchase wasn't worth it just > for a 10 mile ride each year and not go on the ride. Someone who > has a top-of-the-line bicycle is not likely to stop (and quite likely > had a helmet anyway). IOW, the casual cyclists are dissuaded. Wonderful. That's a great way of promoting cycling. Dissuade anyone who is not yet into it at the $1000+ expense level. > Around my area, there is about a factor of 1000 difference in annual > mileage between individuals. To count cyclists rather than cyclist- > miles is just plain silly. I'm not aware of you providing any counts of anything regarding this issue. But I note you're taking refuge in an apparent impossibility. Unless, that is, you've got a practical way of counting cyclist miles. What method do you propose? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 02 Oct 2006 17:41:01 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > SMS wrote: > > > > justin david wrote: > > > > > > > > > The second problem is that people were asked in phone surveys how the > > > helmet law affected their cycling. The response was that they were > > > cycling less, or not at all, specifically due to the law. > > > > > > See the Robinson paper cited in my previous post. Your librarian can > > > get you a copy. > > > > There was apparently a sudden dip right after the law went in followed > > by a gradual recovery. Is this suprising? > > Apparently it _is_ surprising to some posters. > > But the "gradual recovery" is yet another misleading statement. Yes, > cycling did eventually come up to its pre-law numbers - but that was > many, many years later. That increase appears to be mostly a result of > population growth. In other words, the number of cyclists is _still_ > smaller than it would have been without the law. You mean rebellious teenagers stopped cycling because they were told they had to do something, and children who grew up wearing helmets just put them on automatically and don't have an issue with it. And that is surprising? > > Also, there is a difference between a drop in the number of cyclists > > and the drop in the number of cyclist-miles. > > Obviously. But if you're claiming the cyclist miles did NOT drop as a > result of those laws, let's see your evidence. Not hand waving; > evidence. What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of your claims doubtful. > > > Someone who would ride a few miles once a year (like some of my > > neighbors at an annual block party) might well decide that a > > helmet purchase wasn't worth it just for a 10 mile ride each year > > and not go on the ride. Someone who has a top-of-the-line bicycle > > is not likely to stop (and quite likely had a helmet anyway). > > IOW, the casual cyclists are dissuaded. Wonderful. That's a great way > of promoting cycling. Dissuade anyone who is not yet into it at the > $1000+ expense level. So, you can oppose mandatory helmet laws if you like (the California one, BTW, does not apply to adults, making the issue mute here). But, if you think someone riding 10 miles per year is a big deal, just what sort of cycling do you want to "promote". And why do you want to promote it anyway? Just because its "fun" doesn't mean that other physical activities aren't, and 10 miles per year is insignificant environmentally (and someone riding much further per year won't find the cost of the helmet to be a big deal). > > Around my area, there is about a factor of 1000 difference in annual > > mileage between individuals. To count cyclists rather than cyclist- > > miles is just plain silly. > > I'm not aware of you providing any counts of anything regarding this > issue. But I note you're taking refuge in an apparent impossibility. > Unless, that is, you've got a practical way of counting cyclist miles. > What method do you propose? Well, I can count it. Some of my neighbors go on a single bike ride a year (part of a neighborhood block party) with distances well under 10 miles). Serious cyclists training for racing often keep logs of their rides, with annual mileage of around 10,000 miles per year (rough order of magnitude, rounding up in most cases, but certainly over 7500 miles). So, we have about a factor of 1000 difference. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 04 Oct 2006 05:51:07 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >> > >> Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically > >> at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When > >> you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU. > > > >How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't > >produce any, eh? That's what I thought. > > > > It was more than one post. > > And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology > withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised. Wiggle, wiggle, you weasel. You have no evidence that I am pro-MHL, do you? But you are too much of a weasel to admit it. As for an apology......just pucker up and kiss my ass.         Date: 04 Oct 2006 18:29:01 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > >One more time: I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law for you (and only you), > >one that is well enforced and that carries jail time for second time > >offenders. > > > >In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets on the > >bike, helmets when walking, helmets when in the shower, helmets whilst > >driving, helmets whilst you are wanking off. i.e., Helmets 24/7/52 > >until you depart this mortal coil. And then, we'll put you in the box > >with a helmet on your pointy lil head and celebrate that there is one > >less lying, deceptive asshole taking up oxygen. Is that clear enough? > > > So you _are_ pro-MHL. If you believe that, you *are* an imbecile. You're as stupid as the POTUS and I'm done with you.           Date: 05 Oct 2006 14:19:24 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor On 4 Oct 2006 18:29:01 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >> >> >One more time: I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law for you (and only you), >> >one that is well enforced and that carries jail time for second time >> >offenders. >> > >> >In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets on the >> >bike, helmets when walking, helmets when in the shower, helmets whilst >> >driving, helmets whilst you are wanking off. i.e., Helmets 24/7/52 >> >until you depart this mortal coil. And then, we'll put you in the box >> >with a helmet on your pointy lil head and celebrate that there is one >> >less lying, deceptive asshole taking up oxygen. Is that clear enough? >> >> >> So you _are_ pro-MHL. > >If you believe that, you *are* an imbecile. > >You're as stupid as the POTUS and I'm done with you. But you say so yourself. You say repeatedly "I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law..." Now you also say that you don't want this law to apply to _you_; is that what you mean when you also claim you are "anti-MHL"? That MHL's are fine with you as long as they only apply to some people, and that you yourself are exempt?             Date: 05 Oct 2006 15:58:22 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On 4 Oct 2006 18:29:01 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >> > >> >In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life* ... > >> So you _are_ pro-MHL. > >If you believe that, you *are* an imbecile. > >You're as stupid as the POTUS and I'm done with you. > But you say so yourself. > You say repeatedly "I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law..." > > Now you also say that you don't want this law to apply to _you_; is > that what you mean when you also claim you are "anti-MHL"? That MHL's > are fine with you as long as they only apply to some people, and that > you yourself are exempt? He doesn't want it to apply to "some people", but rather to one person - you. In case you don't know, the word "people" is a plural noun. :-) In your case, think of it as a sentence imposed by the Mikado, who wanted to make the punishment fit the crime. Buy some tickets to the next performance of it in your area if you don't get the reference.               Date: 05 Oct 2006 16:04:31 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:58:22 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >> But you say so yourself. > >> You say repeatedly "I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law..." >> >> Now you also say that you don't want this law to apply to _you_; is >> that what you mean when you also claim you are "anti-MHL"? That MHL's >> are fine with you as long as they only apply to some people, and that >> you yourself are exempt? > >He doesn't want it to apply to "some people", but rather to one >person - you. In case you don't know, the word "people" is a plural >noun. :-) > Nevertherless, it is on record (repeatedly) that Ozark is in favour of (at least one) MHL. His claims to be "anti-MHL" are therefore false.         Date: 04 Oct 2006 15:04:33 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor On 4 Oct 2006 05:51:07 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >> >> >> >> Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically >> >> at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When >> >> you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU. >> > >> >How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't >> >produce any, eh? That's what I thought. >> > >> >> It was more than one post. >> >> And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology >> withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised. > >Wiggle, wiggle, you weasel. You have no evidence that I am pro-MHL, do >you? But you are too much of a weasel to admit it. > As I said, more than one post. If you claim that you were lying then, how can we know you are not lying now, or at in other post you have made? I seem to recall some wierd posts you made claiming that someone else had posted or emailed something, and you were upset with either the content or the action; but this was subsequently shown to completely untrue. Is this more of the same?       Date: 02 Oct 2006 21:12:19 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote in message news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of > your claims doubtful. I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my lycra garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to meetings, going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a mandatory helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things instead. This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the road. > > > > > > Someone who would ride a few miles once a year (like some of my > > > neighbors at an annual block party) might well decide that a > > > helmet purchase wasn't worth it just for a 10 mile ride each year > > > and not go on the ride. Someone who has a top-of-the-line bicycle > > > is not likely to stop (and quite likely had a helmet anyway). > > > > IOW, the casual cyclists are dissuaded. Wonderful. That's a great way > > of promoting cycling. Dissuade anyone who is not yet into it at the > > $1000+ expense level. > > So, you can oppose mandatory helmet laws if you like (the California > one, BTW, does not apply to adults, making the issue mute here). But, > if you think someone riding 10 miles per year is a big deal, just > what sort of cycling do you want to "promote". I believe mandatory bike helmet laws make little difference to recreational cyclists, those that cycle for sport. The vast majority of those on training rides already wear helmets. It does dissuade some of those that want to use bikes instead of cars. My almost 17 year old daughter is going away to college next year. Depending on where she ends up she's thinking she would like a bike. Now, she hasn't had a new bike since elementary school, and quit riding her bike at the beginning of junior high. Her one and only reason for not riding a bike is she doesn't like the look of a bike helmet, either when it is on, or how it leaves your hair afterwards. But once she turns 18, she's thinking she wouldn't mind a bike for all those errands she now drives or walks. I'm thinking that's the sort of cycling you want to promote. The kind that mean a business doesn't need quite so much parking. The kind that means an environmental impact report could allow that some people might actually arrive by bike. The kind that would result in less car traffic around schools, sporting events, shopping areas etc.         Date: 03 Oct 2006 00:06:43 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:12:19 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote: > >"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> >> What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the >> drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of >> your claims doubtful. > >I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my lycra >garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my >already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to meetings, >going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a mandatory >helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things instead. >This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Many less for you. But the great majority of cycle trips are only a few miles. If we wish to increase cycle use then it is that kind of trip length that we need to encourage. Those who are willing to get up on sunday and crank out a century don't need encouraging. Cycle helmets and the laws that require them do nothing to encourage the kind of person that might otherwise be persuaded to ride instead of drive; indeed they actively discourage this sort of change. Public health suffers as a result.   Date: 02 Oct 2006 07:42:49 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > > [Safe Kids, a major helmet lobbying organization], acccording to > > > > http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=362 > > > > received something between $100,000 and $999,999 from Bell Sports, the > > > > famous bike helmet manufacturer. > > > > > > For Bell Sports, that's pocket change. > > > > But not for Safe Kids. And that's the whole point. > .... > > Frank's claim that it is not "pocket change" > for Safe Kids is a specious argument - all that is going on is simple > economics. Both sides of the transaction are benefiting. Safe Kids > gets the cash it needs and Bell Helmets gets the advertising space it > needs. That's all there is to it. Please be honest. Bell Helmets gets far more than advertising. By its donation of between $100,000 and $999,999 to Safe Kids Inc., Bell got lobbyists in nearly every state actively trying to convince lawmakers to mandate Bell's products. Safe Kids is one of the major promoters of mandatory helmet laws in the USA. That's way beyond "advertising." Bill, you may think Bell's executives are completely altruistic. You may think Safe Kids executives never thought of this as a quid pro quo. But the gun is certainly smoking. And I think it's morally ugly for a company to pay money to make its products mandatory. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 02 Oct 2006 16:44:01 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > > > > [Safe Kids, a major helmet lobbying organization], acccording to > > > > > http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=362 > > > > > received something between $100,000 and $999,999 from Bell Sports, the > > > > > famous bike helmet manufacturer. > > > > > > > > For Bell Sports, that's pocket change. > > > > > > But not for Safe Kids. And that's the whole point. > > > .... > > > > Frank's claim that it is not "pocket change" > > for Safe Kids is a specious argument - all that is going on is simple > > economics. Both sides of the transaction are benefiting. Safe Kids > > gets the cash it needs and Bell Helmets gets the advertising space it > > needs. That's all there is to it. > > Please be honest. Bell Helmets gets far more than advertising. Please stop lying, Krygowski - just what do you think that a small organization like "Safe Kids" could give Bell Helmets other than a little advertising? > By its donation of between $100,000 and $999,999 to Safe Kids Inc., > Bell got lobbyists in nearly every state actively trying to convince > lawmakers to mandate Bell's products. Safe Kids is one of the major > promoters of mandatory helmet laws in the USA. That's way beyond > "advertising." This is simply a bald-faced lie: any attempt to mandate Bell products would be opposed by all the other businesses selling similar products. Also, Bell Helmets does not have any reason to fund Safe Kids to get lobbyists. Bell Helmets is perfectly capable of hiring its own, and by hiring its own, the company can determine exactly what those lobbyists do. > Bill, you may think Bell's executives are completely altruistic. You > may think Safe Kids executives never thought of this as a quid pro quo. > But the gun is certainly smoking. More lies from Krygowski - I clearly suggested that they were doing what other companies do - making a "charitable" contribution in return for name recognition and for buffing up one's public image. BTW, maybe Krygowski can explain the thing on the web site I showed which included suggestions on how to get very cheap helmets. That hardly sounds like it is Bell Helmet's interests - Bell doesn't make bottom-of-the-line products. > And I think it's morally ugly for a company to pay money to make its > products mandatory. Why don't you produce some documentation that shows that Bell Helmets has contributed money to Safe Kids for the expressed purpose of having Safe Kids lobby the government on Bell Helmet's behalf. By documentation, I mean something that can be used in court, not your mere opinion. If you can't produce any, we can conclude that you are lying as usual. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 01 Oct 2006 19:49:25 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: <snipped > > So why does Krygowski pretend that Bell Helmet's support/advertising > with Safe Kids is any different? His complaint is just plain silly. > Of course it is. But how else can Krygowski maintain his status as rec.bicycles.* Don Quixote if not by tilting with styrofoam windmills?   Date: 01 Oct 2006 19:34:12 From: Lo Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > d.loreli wrote: > It's good that the BMA at least recognized the factors that led to a > decrease in cycling, and now acknowledges that it was not the helmet > legislation. Eh? It's easy to reach incorrect conclusions if given inaccurate data. The BMA Board was misled by BHIT who told them that the driving age had changed, when it hadn't. Do you think the BMA Board would have recommended legislation if they had known the truth? There's also huge difference between an enforced law and a non-enforced law that has no long-term effect on helmet wearing. Do you think the BMA would have voted in favour of legislation if they had known that the majority of cyclists aftected by Ontario's law were disobeying it? Which is better - no law, or a law that the majority of cyclists disobey? If cyclists habitually disobey one law, they might be more inclined to disobey others ... using lights at night, obeying red lights, giving way at intersections ... is that a good idea? > > You were very disparaging of http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1093 > > But at least the website showed the data and allowed you to make up > > your own mind. The comments may be a bit of an over-simplification, > > but other pages on the site report the official estimates of a 44% drop > > in teenage cycling, obtained by counting cyclists at the same time of > > year, the same observation periods at the same 64 sites chosen as a > > random sample of the road system. > That's a gross over-simplification. I could do that sort of survey where > I live, on the same weekend or weekday each year, and get a number that > was very different based on other factors. You can't do a survey that requires 640 hours of observation (at times when people are likely to be cycling) on a single weekend or weekday! >That's the biggest problem > with the site you mentioned, they don't look at the big picture, or > other factors. Even if the number of cyclists that they count at > specific locations goes down by x %, it doesn't mean that total miles > decreased by a similar percentage. True, but research tends to show that inexperienced cyclists have higher injury rates per mile than experienced ones. So numbers counted in surveys might be a more useful measure than total miles cycled. > At the university I attended in the U.S., bicycling used to be the major > mode of transportation around campus and in the town. When I visited > earlier this year, I saw that cycling was greatly reduced. There was no > helmet law introduced, other factors contributed to the decline, > including off-campus housing that was more distant, increased distance > between classes as buildings were built in distant corners of the > campus, better on-campus bus service, and a more affluent student body. Unless you attended uni last year, these things presumably happened gradually over several years. If there's a sudden drop from one year to the next, it would be natural to ask why. Some researchers did. The equivalent of 64% of adult cyclists in Western Australia said they'd ride more except for the helmet law. In New South Wales (NSW) 51% of schoolchildren owning bikes, who hadn't cycled in the past week, cited helmet restrictions, substantially more than other reasons, including safety (18%) and parents (20%). > > Is the claim on the BMA website (that the increased helmet wearing was > > accompanied by a decrease in head injuries by 40 per cent in the > > following four years) a fairer representation of what actually happened > > that the www.cyclehelmets.org appoach of showing a graph of the data > > and adding their own commentary? > Nothing wrong with the graph, it's the conclusion they try to deduce from the data that's incorrect. I did't ask whether is was perfect, just whether it was a fairer representation of what actually happened than the statement (inspired by BHIT) on the BMA website that "the increased helmet wearing was accompanied by a decrease in head injuries by 40 per cent in the following four years" (ie no mention of what happened to non-head injuries).   Date: 01 Oct 2006 16:46:41 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > justin david wrote: > > > Cyclists will cycle whether they're forced to wear a helmet or not. > > That's the whole point. The claims that cycling was reduced because of > helmet laws, have proven to be bogus because the organizations and > people making these claims don't look at the big picture, and they > ignore, either intentionally or unintentionally, the other factors that > affect bicycling. Sorry, Steven, but your attempted explanation for the sudden, precipitous drops in cycling has been shot down many, many times. For the new readers: Steven M. Scharf (SMS) has previously claimed that the reductions in cycling in (for example) Western Australia were caused not by the imposition of an enforced MHL, but by things like increased traffic, the popularity of video games, roller blades, etc. There are at least two problems with his explanation. One is that the cycling drops were large and sudden, corresponding exactly with the law. The factors he's mentioned as excuses are all gradual changes, which would not explain a sudden step decrease in cycling. The second problem is that people were asked in phone surveys how the helmet law affected their cycling. The response was that they were cycling less, or not at all, specifically due to the law. See the Robinson paper cited in my previous post. Your librarian can get you a copy. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 02 Oct 2006 01:19:11 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > SMS wrote: > > justin david wrote: > > > The second problem is that people were asked in phone surveys how the > helmet law affected their cycling. The response was that they were > cycling less, or not at all, specifically due to the law. > > See the Robinson paper cited in my previous post. Your librarian can > get you a copy. There was apparently a sudden dip right after the law went in followed by a gradual recovery. Is this suprising? Also, there is a difference between a drop in the number of cyclists and the drop in the number of cyclist-miles. Someone who would ride a few miles once a year (like some of my neighbors at an annual block party) might well decide that a helmet purchase wasn't worth it just for a 10 mile ride each year and not go on the ride. Someone who has a top-of-the-line bicycle is not likely to stop (and quite likely had a helmet anyway). Around my area, there is about a factor of 1000 difference in annual mileage between individuals. To count cyclists rather than cyclist- miles is just plain silly. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 01 Oct 2006 16:39:21 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! justin david wrote: > > Cyclists will cycle whether they're forced to wear a helmet or not. _Some_ cyclists will continue to cycle - priily, those who already choose to wear helmets. But based on available evidence, many cyclists will not cycle, or will cycle less, if forced to wear a helmet. Recall, the evidence for this comes from specific questions in telephone surveys, among other sources. The result will be fewer cyclists, since it's very unlikely that anyone will say "I'm finally forced to wear a helmet. That's what I was waiting for! I'm taking up cycling!" Have you read Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475? There's plenty of data there (before & after MHL) that addresses this question. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 02 Oct 2006 02:24:54 From: slim Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On 2006-10-01 19:39:21 -0400, frkrygow@gmail.com said: > > justin david wrote: >> >> Cyclists will cycle whether they're forced to wear a helmet or not. > > _Some_ cyclists will continue to cycle - priily, those who already > choose to wear helmets. > > But based on available evidence, many cyclists will not cycle, or will > cycle less, if forced to wear a helmet. Recall, the evidence for this > comes from specific questions in telephone surveys, among other > sources. > > The result will be fewer cyclists, since it's very unlikely that anyone > will say "I'm finally forced to wear a helmet. That's what I was > waiting for! I'm taking up cycling!" > > Have you read Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, > 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475? There's > plenty of data there (before & after MHL) that addresses this question. Thank you. That was the best thing I have read on the subject in a while. -- - Slim     Date: 01 Oct 2006 23:52:07 From: bill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > justin david wrote: >> Cyclists will cycle whether they're forced to wear a helmet or not. > > _Some_ cyclists will continue to cycle - priily, those who already > choose to wear helmets. > > But based on available evidence, many cyclists will not cycle, or will > cycle less, if forced to wear a helmet. Recall, the evidence for this > comes from specific questions in telephone surveys, among other > sources. > > The result will be fewer cyclists, since it's very unlikely that anyone > will say "I'm finally forced to wear a helmet. That's what I was > waiting for! I'm taking up cycling!" > > Have you read Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, > 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475? There's > plenty of data there (before & after MHL) that addresses this question. > > - Frank Krygowski > MHL in California is the main reason I don't have a motorcycle now. I take the point of view that if I am out there dicing it up with cars then my head is probably not the only thing to worry about. You would need full body armor to be safe on a highway. For back road and off road rides the helmet just plain takes the fun out of it, and that is the reason for riding, isn't it? I also tried riding with a helmet and a sweat band this summer and the two don't go together at all, especially when I am wearing my super UV blocking goggles/sunglasses. Bill Baka       Date: 02 Oct 2006 00:29:56 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:52:07 GMT, bill <bbaka@syix.com > wrote: >frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> justin david wrote: >>> Cyclists will cycle whether they're forced to wear a helmet or not. >> >> _Some_ cyclists will continue to cycle - priily, those who already >> choose to wear helmets. >> >> But based on available evidence, many cyclists will not cycle, or will >> cycle less, if forced to wear a helmet. Recall, the evidence for this >> comes from specific questions in telephone surveys, among other >> sources. >> >> The result will be fewer cyclists, since it's very unlikely that anyone >> will say "I'm finally forced to wear a helmet. That's what I was >> waiting for! I'm taking up cycling!" >> >> Have you read Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, >> 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475? There's >> plenty of data there (before & after MHL) that addresses this question. >> >> - Frank Krygowski >> >MHL in California is the main reason I don't have a motorcycle now. I >take the point of view that if I am out there dicing it up with cars >then my head is probably not the only thing to worry about. You would >need full body armor to be safe on a highway. For back road and off road >rides the helmet just plain takes the fun out of it, and that is the >reason for riding, isn't it? I also tried riding with a helmet and a >sweat band this summer and the two don't go together at all, especially >when I am wearing my super UV blocking goggles/sunglasses. >Bill Baka This is of course anecdotal evidence, unlike the peer-reviewed study that Krygowski cites - but unlike the stories that the pro-helmet whackos try to palm off as truth, this one actually coincides with what the researchers tell us is really happening.         Date: 02 Oct 2006 00:48:00 From: bill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:52:07 GMT, bill <bbaka@syix.com> wrote: > >> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>> justin david wrote: >>>> Cyclists will cycle whether they're forced to wear a helmet or not. >>> _Some_ cyclists will continue to cycle - priily, those who already >>> choose to wear helmets. >>> >>> But based on available evidence, many cyclists will not cycle, or will >>> cycle less, if forced to wear a helmet. Recall, the evidence for this >>> comes from specific questions in telephone surveys, among other >>> sources. >>> >>> The result will be fewer cyclists, since it's very unlikely that anyone >>> will say "I'm finally forced to wear a helmet. That's what I was >>> waiting for! I'm taking up cycling!" >>> >>> Have you read Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, >>> 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475? There's >>> plenty of data there (before & after MHL) that addresses this question. >>> >>> - Frank Krygowski >>> >> MHL in California is the main reason I don't have a motorcycle now. I >> take the point of view that if I am out there dicing it up with cars >> then my head is probably not the only thing to worry about. You would >> need full body armor to be safe on a highway. For back road and off road >> rides the helmet just plain takes the fun out of it, and that is the >> reason for riding, isn't it? I also tried riding with a helmet and a >> sweat band this summer and the two don't go together at all, especially >> when I am wearing my super UV blocking goggles/sunglasses. >> Bill Baka > > > This is of course anecdotal evidence, unlike the peer-reviewed study > that Krygowski cites - but unlike the stories that the pro-helmet > whackos try to palm off as truth, this one actually coincides with > what the researchers tell us is really happening. It is one of the reasons my wife and I sold our matched pair of Yamaha 100's. Her hair and a helmet would not have coexisted peacefully. Another reason I don't like bicycle helmets is there is no face guard of any kind. I broke 2 front teeth in an off road crash, with a helmet, so my confidence in a bicycle helmet is kind of lacking. Roughly $3,000 in tooth repair riding with helmet. I would consider wearing a helmet if someone came up with a cross between a motorcycle full head helmet and a bicycle helmet. Nothing man made is perfect. Bill Baka   Date: 01 Oct 2006 08:29:01 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > d.loreli@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Quoting from http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis > > "In our 1999 report significant emphasis was placed on the BMA's wish > > not to discourage cycling by making helmets compulsory. This advice was > > based on evidence from Australia indicating that cycling levels > > decreased following the introduction of legislation. This evidence is > > now outdated and contains distortions from variables including a > > reduction in the legal age of driving that meant more teenagers > > travelled in motor vehicles. A study from Ontario, Canada has > > demonstrated that introduction of helmet legislation did not reduce > > numbers of children cycling" > > It's good that the BMA at least recognized the factors that led to a > decrease in cycling, and now acknowledges that it was not the helmet > legislation. <sigh > Such willful ignorance! In the paragraphs immediately following the one you apparently approve of, d.loreli partially explained why the paragraph you quoted was wrong. Here's the quote: "It was later revealed that the law in Ontario wasn't enforced and by 1999 helmet wearing had returned to pre-law levels. It tells us nothing about whether enforced laws discourage cycling, simply that cyclists weren't prepared to obey a non-enforced law." "There was also no reduction in the legal driving age in Australia. The age at which teenagers can sit the driving test (and, if they pass, drive without an instructor or supervisor) is 18 in Victoria and 17 in most other states, exactly the same as before the helmet law. " Talking about taking things out of context, Steven! > > You were very disparaging of http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1093 > > But at least the website showed the data and allowed you to make up > > your own mind. The comments may be a bit of an over-simplification, > > but other pages on the site report the official estimates of a 44% drop > > in teenage cycling, obtained by counting cyclists at the same time of > > year, the same observation periods at the same 64 sites chosen as a > > random sample of the road system. > > That's a gross over-simplification. I could do that sort of survey where > I live, on the same weekend or weekday each year, and get a number that > was very different based on other factors. That's the biggest problem > with the site you mentioned, they don't look at the big picture, or > other factors. Even if the number of cyclists that they count at > specific locations goes down by x %, it doesn't mean that total miles > decreased by a similar percentage. I'm sure YOU could do an incompetent survey; but that's no indication the surveys in question were similarly incompetent. Again: Reductions in cycling were determined by three independent methods: automatic counters, telephone surveys, and trained observers. Care was taken to duplicate conditions such as weather, day of week, etc. And the differences recorded were all step changes. And the phone surveys confirmed the _reason_ for the drops. > > At the university I attended in the U.S., bicycling used to be the major > mode of transportation around campus and in the town. When I visited > earlier this year, I saw that cycling was greatly reduced. There was no > helmet law introduced, other factors contributed to the decline, > including off-campus housing that was more distant, increased distance > between classes as buildings were built in distant corners of the > campus, better on-campus bus service, and a more affluent student body. IOW, you're comparing one contemporary data point with your data from - what? - 20+ years ago? Of _course_ gradual environmental changes have had enough time to affect cycling. The Australian data was much different. In the case of the enforced Australian laws, they observed immediate step changes exactly coincident with the laws. And again, phone surveys confirmed the reason for the changes. The only kernel of truth in your absurd reasoning is this: If a helmet law is conspicuously unenforced, it won't be likely to directly cause a large, permanent drop in cycling. However, the "Cycling is dangerous!!!!" publicity that's used in helmet promotion seems likely to reduce cycling. When moms frequently hear "Your child may be brain damaged from riding a bike!" they'll eventually say "Don't ride!" - Frank Krygowski   Date: 01 Oct 2006 08:11:25 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > [Safe Kids, a major helmet lobbying organization], acccording to > > http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=362 > > received something between $100,000 and $999,999 from Bell Sports, the > > famous bike helmet manufacturer. > > For Bell Sports, that's pocket change. But not for Safe Kids. And that's the whole point. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 02 Oct 2006 01:11:27 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > [Safe Kids, a major helmet lobbying organization], acccording to > > > http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=362 > > > received something between $100,000 and $999,999 from Bell Sports, the > > > famous bike helmet manufacturer. > > > > For Bell Sports, that's pocket change. > > But not for Safe Kids. And that's the whole point. It is a non-point! What was snipped: : : Gee. They sell helmets, so they want their name mentioned on some : : web site so parents will remember "Bell" if they buy helmets for : : their children, and using that site targets parents whom Bell : : Sports would presume are concerned about the safety of their : : children. : : It's called something like "targeted keting". You know, what : : Google does when it bases ads on search strings. And that is the whole point. Frank's claim that it is not "pocket change" for Safe Kids is a specious argument - all that is going on is simple economics. Both sides of the transaction are benefiting. Safe Kids gets the cash it needs and Bell Helmets gets the advertising space it needs. That's all there is to it. BTW, you'll see the same thing at work in the other example I gave: : : Look at <http://sfopera.com/p/?mID=129 >. Wells Fargo is the "Season : : Sponsor" of the San Francisco Opera. Wells Fargo gets a red box with : : yellow text on that web page and quite a few other web pages. If you : : attend a performance and read the program booklet you get when you : : wander in, you'll get a list of various contributors, both individuals : : and corporations. You can be listed too. Just send in a check for a : : sufficient amount (arts organizations really do need financial : : support, so please do it). Wells Fargo's contribution to the opera is pocket change for Wells Fargo, and a significant chunk of change for the opera. The bank is getting the advertising space it needs plus the intangible benefit of being seen as contributing to the community and the opera gets the cash it needs to put on world-class performances. It is simply a mutually beneficial arrangement of the sort you'll see everywhere in the U.S. So why does Krygowski pretend that Bell Helmet's support/advertising with Safe Kids is any different? His complaint is just plain silly. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 02 Oct 2006 01:19:54 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:11:27 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >> > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >> > >> > > [Safe Kids, a major helmet lobbying organization], acccording to >> > > http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=362 >> > > received something between $100,000 and $999,999 from Bell Sports, the >> > > famous bike helmet manufacturer. >> > >> > For Bell Sports, that's pocket change. >> >> But not for Safe Kids. And that's the whole point. > >It is a non-point! What was snipped: > >: : Gee. They sell helmets, so they want their name mentioned on some >: : web site so parents will remember "Bell" if they buy helmets for >: : their children, and using that site targets parents whom Bell >: : Sports would presume are concerned about the safety of their >: : children. > >: : It's called something like "targeted keting". You know, what >: : Google does when it bases ads on search strings. > >And that is the whole point. Frank's claim that it is not "pocket change" >for Safe Kids is a specious argument - all that is going on is simple >economics. Both sides of the transaction are benefiting. Safe Kids >gets the cash it needs and Bell Helmets gets the advertising space it >needs. That's all there is to it. > No that's not all there is to it. We have a company which has as its goal the making of money, and a lobby group which has as its goal the wearing of helmets by as many people as possible, by as many means as legal. Both of these are at odds with the societal goal of better public health, and lower health care costs. "Safe Kids" may need Bell's money, but we the public don't need Safe Kids, any more than we need Bell's magic foam hats.         Date: 02 Oct 2006 02:43:12 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:11:27 GMT, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > >frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > >> Bill Z. wrote: > >> > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >> > > >> > > [Safe Kids, a major helmet lobbying organization], acccording to > >> > > http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=362 > >> > > received something between $100,000 and $999,999 from Bell Sports, the > >> > > famous bike helmet manufacturer. > >> > > >> > For Bell Sports, that's pocket change. > >> > >> But not for Safe Kids. And that's the whole point. > > > >It is a non-point! What was snipped: > > > >: : Gee. They sell helmets, so they want their name mentioned on some > >: : web site so parents will remember "Bell" if they buy helmets for > >: : their children, and using that site targets parents whom Bell > >: : Sports would presume are concerned about the safety of their > >: : children. > > > >: : It's called something like "targeted keting". You know, what > >: : Google does when it bases ads on search strings. > > > >And that is the whole point. Frank's claim that it is not "pocket change" > >for Safe Kids is a specious argument - all that is going on is simple > >economics. Both sides of the transaction are benefiting. Safe Kids > >gets the cash it needs and Bell Helmets gets the advertising space it > >needs. That's all there is to it. > > > > No that's not all there is to it. > > We have a company which has as its goal the making of money, and a > lobby group which has as its goal the wearing of helmets by as many > people as possible, by as many means as legal. Oh my god!!!! The horror!!! A company "which has as its goal the making of money"? Who would have thought? "Yankees in Georgia! How did they ever get in here?" They lobby? So does GM, the insurance industry, and every other corporate interest imaginable. You think this is news or something special? > Both of these are at odds with the societal goal of better public > health, and lower health care costs. > > "Safe Kids" may need Bell's money, but we the public don't need Safe > Kids, any more than we need Bell's magic foam hats. You mean like <http://www.vtbikeped.org/what/safety.htm > or <http://www.safekids.org/tips/tips_bike.htm > (the later mentions helmets once - one bullet out of 8, but this list is not a bicycle education program). Or do you mean a different "Safe Kids"? If so, then provide the URL so we know what you are ranting about. The ones I just found look more or less innocuous. On the first URL, helmets are mentioned several times, but some of those are in a description of "Low Cost Helmets" and how to get them, either through "Safe Kids" or other organizations. The second URL(for both bicycles and motor bikes) has the word "helmet" twice, both under the same bullet: "Wear a bicycle or motorcycle helmet on every ride. Check to see if your helmet should have a safety certification." And that is it. To say the least, I'd say you are overreacting, just like Krygowski. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 30 Sep 2006 19:26:39 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! d.loreli@hotmail.com wrote: > So perhaps the opinions of > emergency physicians might have been formed predominantly by what they > read in the ATLS course ... > > which also says "bicycle safety information is provided by the > National Safe Kids Campaign." Which, acccording to http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=362 received something between $100,000 and $999,999 from Bell Sports, the famous bike helmet manufacturer. Imagine that! - Frank Krygowski     Date: 01 Oct 2006 12:13:22 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On 30 Sep 2006 19:26:39 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >d.loreli@hotmail.com wrote: >> So perhaps the opinions of >> emergency physicians might have been formed predominantly by what they >> read in the ATLS course ... >> >> which also says "bicycle safety information is provided by the >> National Safe Kids Campaign." > >Which, acccording to >http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=362 >received something between $100,000 and $999,999 from Bell Sports, the >famous bike helmet manufacturer. > >Imagine that! > I am *shocked* - *!*shocked*!* - to find helmet manufacturers supporting pro-helmet lobby groups.     Date: 01 Oct 2006 02:58:01 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > d.loreli@hotmail.com wrote: > > So perhaps the opinions of > > emergency physicians might have been formed predominantly by what they > > read in the ATLS course ... > > > > which also says "bicycle safety information is provided by the > > National Safe Kids Campaign." > > Which, acccording to > http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=362 > received something between $100,000 and $999,999 from Bell Sports, the > famous bike helmet manufacturer. For Bell Sports, that's pocket change. Gee. They sell helmets, so they want their name mentioned on some web site so parents will remember "Bell" if they buy helmets for their children, and using that site targets parents whom Bell Sports would presume are concerned about the safety of their children. It's called something like "targeted keting". You know, what Google does when it bases ads on search strings. > Imagine that! Look at <http://sfopera.com/p/?mID=129 >. Wells Fargo is the "Season Sponsor" of the San Francisco Opera. Wells Fargo gets a red box with yellow text on that web page and quite a few other web pages. If you attend a performance and read the program booklet you get when you wander in, you'll get a list of various contributors, both individuals and corporations. You can be listed too. Just send in a check for a sufficient amount (arts organizations really do need financial support, so please do it). Imagine that! But hey, it beats the major Silicon Valley corporation I recently called to order a product. When they tried to sell me a a digital camera to go with a completely unrelated device, I told them "What I really want to do is to complete a business transaction." -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 30 Sep 2006 18:13:50 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > Here's two that show that the ER doctors are big on promoting helmet use > "http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis" > "http://www.acep.org/webportal/PatientsConsumers/HealthSubjectsByTopic/BicycleSafety/summerbikesafety.htm" The BMA were lobbied by representatives of an organisation called Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT, or Be-Hit as some cyclists have suggested!) They made a submission to the Board of Science and Education which was taken as fact. Quoting from http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis "In our 1999 report significant emphasis was placed on the BMA's wish not to discourage cycling by making helmets compulsory. This advice was based on evidence from Australia indicating that cycling levels decreased following the introduction of legislation. This evidence is now outdated and contains distortions from variables including a reduction in the legal age of driving that meant more teenagers travelled in motor vehicles. A study from Ontario, Canada has demonstrated that introduction of helmet legislation did not reduce numbers of children cycling" It was later revealed that the law in Ontario wasn't enforced and by 1999 helmet wearing had returned to pre-law levels. It tells us nothing about whether enforced laws discourage cycling, simply that cyclists weren't prepared to obey a non-enforced law. There was also no reduction in the legal driving age in Australia. The age at which teenagers can sit the driving test (and, if they pass, drive without an instructor or supervisor) is 18 in Victoria and 17 in most other states, exactly the same as before the helmet law. Further down, the same website states: "In Victoria, Australia, an increase in helmet use from 31 per cent prior to legislation to 75 per cent one year after was accompanied by a decrease in head injuries by 40 per cent in the following four years." You were very disparaging of http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1093 But at least the website showed the data and allowed you to make up your own mind. The comments may be a bit of an over-simplification, but other pages on the site report the official estimates of a 44% drop in teenage cycling, obtained by counting cyclists at the same time of year, the same observation periods at the same 64 sites chosen as a random sample of the road system. Is the claim on the BMA website (that the increased helmet wearing was accompanied by a decrease in head injuries by 40 per cent in the following four years) a fairer representation of what actually happened that the www.cyclehelmets.org appoach of showing a graph of the data and adding their own commentary? If you don't think the drop in non-head injuries was caused by a drop in the amount of cycling, what is your explanation? Cyclists who believe in Safety in Numbers think that it's important to try and estimate the effect of enforce laws on cycle-use. > The lack of any qualifying statement regarding the actual low risk of > being involved in an accident where a helmet would make a difference is > never included because it would dilute their message. Every accident > where a cyclist is seriously injured or killed due to the lack of a > helmet is more evidence, in their value system, that helmets should be > required. There's another example of helmet lobbying on the BMA website: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722-a#131086 "The Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course has been developed by the American College of Surgeons and is taught to physicians responsible for providing care for the injured patient throughout the world. The recently revised ATLS student course manual includes the following statements regarding bicycle helmets: 1) Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85%; 2) Universal use of bicycle helmets would save 1 life every day and prevent 1 head injury every 4 minutes; 3) Mandatory bicycle helmet laws have reduced mortality by 80% in areas where they have been passed and enforced ...." If that's what emergency physicians have been taught, it's not surprising they believe in helmets. As you say, they haven't really considered the risks. In Canada (financial year 03/04) 815 cyclists were hospitalised for head injury. If you divide that by the number of emergency physicians in the entire country, it looks as if they don't see all that many cyclists with serious head injuries. The three main causes of hospital admissions for head injury were falls (7,637), motor vehicles (5,970) and assault (1,470). So perhaps the opinions of emergency physicians might have been formed predominantly by what they read in the ATLS course ... which also says "bicycle safety information is provided by the National Safe Kids Campaign." Claims about fatalities are easy to check. The main place where helmet laws have been passed and enforced is Australia. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a/DC1 states: "A similar phenomenon was also noted for Australia as a whole. Comparing 1988 (before any helmet law) with 1994 (when all states had enforced laws) cyclist, pedestrian and all road user deaths fell by 35%, 36% and 38% respectively; head-injury deaths fell by 30%, 38% and 42%.[w20] Thus the decline for cyclists was less than other road users.[w20] This suggests that, given the fall in cycle-use, the risk of fatal injury per cyclist increased relative to other road users." The arguments about helmets seem to arise because organisations like BHIT and the National Safe Kids Campaign have lots of funds to lobby politicians and health providers about helmet laws. They do so by telling people that enforced helmet laws have reduced fatalities by 80% ... even though the truth is somewhat different, as shown by the data for Australia. If everyone could agree that cyclists should be allowed to choose, there'd be no arguments!     Date: 01 Oct 2006 07:13:14 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! d.loreli@hotmail.com wrote: > Quoting from http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis > "In our 1999 report significant emphasis was placed on the BMA's wish > not to discourage cycling by making helmets compulsory. This advice was > based on evidence from Australia indicating that cycling levels > decreased following the introduction of legislation. This evidence is > now outdated and contains distortions from variables including a > reduction in the legal age of driving that meant more teenagers > travelled in motor vehicles. A study from Ontario, Canada has > demonstrated that introduction of helmet legislation did not reduce > numbers of children cycling" It's good that the BMA at least recognized the factors that led to a decrease in cycling, and now acknowledges that it was not the helmet legislation. > You were very disparaging of http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1093 > But at least the website showed the data and allowed you to make up > your own mind. The comments may be a bit of an over-simplification, > but other pages on the site report the official estimates of a 44% drop > in teenage cycling, obtained by counting cyclists at the same time of > year, the same observation periods at the same 64 sites chosen as a > random sample of the road system. That's a gross over-simplification. I could do that sort of survey where I live, on the same weekend or weekday each year, and get a number that was very different based on other factors. That's the biggest problem with the site you mentioned, they don't look at the big picture, or other factors. Even if the number of cyclists that they count at specific locations goes down by x %, it doesn't mean that total miles decreased by a similar percentage. At the university I attended in the U.S., bicycling used to be the major mode of transportation around campus and in the town. When I visited earlier this year, I saw that cycling was greatly reduced. There was no helmet law introduced, other factors contributed to the decline, including off-campus housing that was more distant, increased distance between classes as buildings were built in distant corners of the campus, better on-campus bus service, and a more affluent student body. > Is the claim on the BMA website (that the increased helmet wearing was > accompanied by a decrease in head injuries by 40 per cent in the > following four years) a fairer representation of what actually happened > that the www.cyclehelmets.org appoach of showing a graph of the data > and adding their own commentary? Nothing wrong with the graph, it's the conclusion they try to deduce from the data that's incorrect.       Date: 01 Oct 2006 15:39:07 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:13:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote: >At the university I attended in the U.S., bicycling used to be the major >mode of transportation around campus and in the town. When I visited >earlier this year, I saw that cycling was greatly reduced. Do you have traffic counts to support this, or is it merely your unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) perception?         Date: 03 Oct 2006 09:22:22 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" > <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > ><obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message > >news:1159824742.359228.280090@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> Cathy Kearns wrote: > >> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > >> > > > >> > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the > >> > > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of > >> > > your claims doubtful. > >> > > >> > I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my > >lycra > >> > garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my > >> > already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to > >meetings, > >> > going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a > >mandatory > >> > helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things > >instead. > >> > This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the > >road. > >> > > > >> > >> Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion > >> accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is > >> that why you wear it? > > > >I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. > > Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation". And then look up "twisted, psychotic liar", to learn all about jtaylor.           Date: 03 Oct 2006 17:20:21 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On 3 Oct 2006 09:22:22 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" >> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> ><obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message >> >news:1159824742.359228.280090@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> Cathy Kearns wrote: >> >> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... >> >> > > >> >> > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the >> >> > > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of >> >> > > your claims doubtful. >> >> > >> >> > I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my >> >lycra >> >> > garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my >> >> > already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to >> >meetings, >> >> > going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a >> >mandatory >> >> > helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things >> >instead. >> >> > This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the >> >road. >> >> > > >> >> >> >> Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion >> >> accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is >> >> that why you wear it? >> > >> >I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. >> >> Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation". > > >And then look up "twisted, psychotic liar", to learn all about jtaylor. Insults are a sign that the person employing them has no other form of argument. You'll find this is common among pro-MHL zealots.             Date: 04 Oct 2006 11:57:20 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 4 Oct 2006 10:39:11 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> On 4 Oct 2006 09:26:08 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> >> On 4 Oct 2006 05:51:07 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> >> >> On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically > >> >> >> >> at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When > >> >> >> >> you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't > >> >> >> >produce any, eh? That's what I thought. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It was more than one post. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology > >> >> >> withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised. > >> >> > > >> >> >Wiggle, wiggle, you weasel. You have no evidence that I am pro-MHL, do > >> >> >you? But you are too much of a weasel to admit it. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> As I said, more than one post. > >> >> > >> >> If you claim that you were lying then, how can we know you are not > >> >> lying now, or at in other post you have made? > >> >> > >> > > >> >It was a post made in pointed sarcasm. And let me repeat it: I would > >> >love to see you (and only you) come under the jurisdiction of a > >> >strictly enforced Mandatory Helmet Law that carries time in the slammer > >> >for second time offenders. Clear enough? > >> > > >> > >> Well, no, really. > >> > >> Are you in favour of an MHL in my jurisdiction? > > > >What part of "you (and only you)" don't you understand? > > > > So you are in favour of an MHL. > > Why then, are you so upset when I post the truth? You are either a shameless liar, or a psychotic. Which is it? Or is the lying a symptom of your psychosis?               Date: 04 Oct 2006 21:25:08 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor On 4 Oct 2006 11:57:20 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >> >> >It was a post made in pointed sarcasm. And let me repeat it: I would >> >> >love to see you (and only you) come under the jurisdiction of a >> >> >strictly enforced Mandatory Helmet Law that carries time in the slammer >> >> >for second time offenders. Clear enough? >> >> > >> >> >> >> Well, no, really. >> >> >> >> Are you in favour of an MHL in my jurisdiction? >> > >> >What part of "you (and only you)" don't you understand? >> > >> >> So you are in favour of an MHL. >> >> Why then, are you so upset when I post the truth? > >You are either a shameless liar, or a psychotic. Which is it? Or is the >lying a symptom of your psychosis? Insults aside (please leave them aside; they do you no credit), are you or are you not in favour of an MHL where I live?         Date: 01 Oct 2006 18:08:56 From: justin david Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:39:07 GMT, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:13:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >wrote: > > >>At the university I attended in the U.S., bicycling used to be the major >>mode of transportation around campus and in the town. When I visited >>earlier this year, I saw that cycling was greatly reduced. > >Do you have traffic counts to support this, or is it merely your >unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) perception? Given that Americans have statistically gotten fatter leads me to believe they simply aren't exercising as much as they used to. Cyclists will cycle whether they're forced to wear a helmet or not. In NYC, we go through periods where we are harassed by the cops for any stupid reason, no bells, not the right color reflectors, not being in the bike lane, etc. while they let cars run lights, make illegal turns, speed and run people over with no penalty. It doesn't deter people who want to cycle to do so. It just makes them more vigilant about watching for the police given the price of a ticket for a bike infraction is the same as that for a car.           Date: 01 Oct 2006 19:38:59 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:08:56 GMT, justin david <ustindavid@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:39:07 GMT, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:13:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >>wrote: >> >> >>>At the university I attended in the U.S., bicycling used to be the major >>>mode of transportation around campus and in the town. When I visited >>>earlier this year, I saw that cycling was greatly reduced. >> >>Do you have traffic counts to support this, or is it merely your >>unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) perception? > >Given that Americans have statistically gotten fatter leads me to >believe they simply aren't exercising as much as they used to. >Cyclists will cycle whether they're forced to wear a helmet or not. Studies (multiple) show otherwise.           Date: 01 Oct 2006 12:31:26 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! justin david wrote: > Cyclists will cycle whether they're forced to wear a helmet or not. That's the whole point. The claims that cycling was reduced because of helmet laws, have proven to be bogus because the organizations and people making these claims don't look at the big picture, and they ignore, either intentionally or unintentionally, the other factors that affect bicycling.             Date: 03 Oct 2006 18:37:28 From: Subject: Question for jtaylor obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > On 3 Oct 2006 09:22:22 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > > > > > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" > > >> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> ><obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message > > >> >news:1159824742.359228.280090@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > > >> >> Cathy Kearns wrote: > > >> >> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > >> >> > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the > > >> >> > > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of > > >> >> > > your claims doubtful. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my > > >> >lycra > > >> >> > garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my > > >> >> > already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to > > >> >meetings, > > >> >> > going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a > > >> >mandatory > > >> >> > helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things > > >> >instead. > > >> >> > This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the > > >> >road. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > >> >> Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion > > >> >> accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is > > >> >> that why you wear it? > > >> > > > >> >I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. > > >> > > >> Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation". > > > > > > > > >And then look up "twisted, psychotic liar", to learn all about jtaylor. > > > > Insults are a sign that the person employing them has no other form of > > argument. > > Calling a spade a spade is not an insult. > > > > You'll find this is common among pro-MHL zealots. > > Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically > at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When > you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU. How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't produce any, eh? That's what I thought. I'll remind you of your failure regularly.               Date: 04 Oct 2006 15:18:28 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 4 Oct 2006 11:57:20 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > > >> >> >It was a post made in pointed sarcasm. And let me repeat it: I would > >> >> >love to see you (and only you) come under the jurisdiction of a > >> >> >strictly enforced Mandatory Helmet Law that carries time in the slammer > >> >> >for second time offenders. Clear enough? > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Well, no, really. > >> >> > >> >> Are you in favour of an MHL in my jurisdiction? > >> > > >> >What part of "you (and only you)" don't you understand? > >> > > >> > >> So you are in favour of an MHL. > >> > >> Why then, are you so upset when I post the truth? > > > >You are either a shameless liar, or a psychotic. Which is it? Or is the > >lying a symptom of your psychosis? > > Insults aside (please leave them aside; they do you no credit), are > you or are you not in favour of an MHL where I live? Are you really this stoooopid, or are you posing as an imbecile for fun? One more time: I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law for you (and only you), one that is well enforced and that carries jail time for second time offenders. In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets on the bike, helmets when walking, helmets when in the shower, helmets whilst driving, helmets whilst you are wanking off. i.e., Helmets 24/7/52 until you depart this mortal coil. And then, we'll put you in the box with a helmet on your pointy lil head and celebrate that there is one less lying, deceptive asshole taking up oxygen. Is that clear enough?                 Date: 05 Oct 2006 01:05:18 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >One more time: I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law for you (and only you), >one that is well enforced and that carries jail time for second time >offenders. > >In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets on the >bike, helmets when walking, helmets when in the shower, helmets whilst >driving, helmets whilst you are wanking off. i.e., Helmets 24/7/52 >until you depart this mortal coil. And then, we'll put you in the box >with a helmet on your pointy lil head and celebrate that there is one >less lying, deceptive asshole taking up oxygen. Is that clear enough? So you _are_ pro-MHL.               Date: 04 Oct 2006 11:46:21 From: Subject: Re: Question for jtaylor On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: >> >> Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically >> at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When >> you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU. > >How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't >produce any, eh? That's what I thought. > It was more than one post. And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised.             Date: 03 Oct 2006 13:38:32 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 3 Oct 2006 09:22:22 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote: > > > > >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" > >> <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> ><obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message > >> >news:1159824742.359228.280090@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > >> >> Cathy Kearns wrote: > >> >> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> >> > news:m3k63i62hn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the > >> >> > > drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of > >> >> > > your claims doubtful. > >> >> > > >> >> > I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my > >> >lycra > >> >> > garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my > >> >> > already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to > >> >meetings, > >> >> > going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a > >> >mandatory > >> >> > helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things > >> >instead. > >> >> > This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the > >> >road. > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion > >> >> accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is > >> >> that why you wear it? > >> > > >> >I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category. > >> > >> Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation". > > > > > >And then look up "twisted, psychotic liar", to learn all about jtaylor. > > Insults are a sign that the person employing them has no other form of > argument. Calling a spade a spade is not an insult. > You'll find this is common among pro-MHL zealots. Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU.   Date: 30 Sep 2006 13:21:18 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m3r6xt3z36.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or > merely delusional. Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) while you're out driving your stoopid car. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 30 Sep 2006 21:11:07 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m3r6xt3z36.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > > I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or > > merely delusional. > > Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > while you're out driving your stoopid car. I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some meds, the better. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 01 Oct 2006 07:17:00 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m3r6xt3z36.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> >>> I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or >>> merely delusional. >> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >> while you're out driving your stoopid car. > > I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some > meds, the better. Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most of us have done.   Date: 30 Sep 2006 13:15:38 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m3wt7l3za3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> Ssshhhhhh. Don't worry. Everything's gonna be all right. >> Everybody's gonna wear helmets, just like you want. >> There are no enemies, only friends who smile & nod and >> agree with you. >> >> Good night, sleep tight. Don't let the Nazis bite. >> > > Keats sure made a fool of himself. Yup, he sure did. Keep on a-wrigglin' & a-squirmin'. It just goes to show what you pro-helmet zealot, car-driving, Nazi-Moron-Liars are all about -- viz: greedy, selfish piggishness. Oink, oink. Please try to not run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) while you're out, driving your stoopid car. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 30 Sep 2006 21:10:25 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m3wt7l3za3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > >> Ssshhhhhh. Don't worry. Everything's gonna be all right. > >> Everybody's gonna wear helmets, just like you want. > >> There are no enemies, only friends who smile & nod and > >> agree with you. > >> > >> Good night, sleep tight. Don't let the Nazis bite. > >> > > > > Keats sure made a fool of himself. > > Yup, he sure did. > > Keep on a-wrigglin' & a-squirmin'. It just goes to show > what you pro-helmet zealot, car-driving, Nazi-Moron-Liars > are all about -- viz: greedy, selfish piggishness. > > Oink, oink. Are you still in elementary school? > > Please try to not run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > while you're out, driving your stoopid car. Please try to act like an adult, even if that is difficult for you. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 30 Sep 2006 12:57:49 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m31wpt5en5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com writes: > >> Tom Keats wrote: >> > In article <GcwTg.8087$UG4.6325@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> writes: >> > >> > > Wearing a helmet can cause no harm and probably will save >> > > lives. What is all this noise about anyway? >> > >> > 1) So many car drivers such as yourself feel aggregiously & unfairly >> > emburdened, what with speed limits, car insurance, gas taxes, >> > having to be careful, etc. <snip> >> > >> > 2) You car drivers want everything so stoopid-easy. <snip> >> >> Wow1 A guy makes a simple statement and asks a simple question, and >> from this you conclude that he a) is a car driver who thinks bicycles >> have no place on the streets and b) is a vocal helmet proponent, mostly >> so he will feel better about things when he hits a cyclist. > > While George Conklin is in fact usenet kook, I got the same reaction Wonder why? > from someone (Tom Keats, if I recall correctly) who accused me of > being a "car driver" unconcerned about cyclists, merely because I > thought that using a helmet is a reasonable choice a cyclist might > make, No, I accused you of demanding, like so many other pro-helmet zealot Nazi/liar/morons, that cyclists wear helmets so that car drivers like yourself can feel more comfortable and less encumbered by the need & effort to take care around other fellow but non-motorized road users. Actually, that was the point Dr. Ian Whatever set out to demonstrate. > and because I don't think you have to pretend that helmets are > useless to justify a decision not to wear one. Yeah. Sher. Whatever. Music of the Spheres. Go find a parking spot. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca   Date: 30 Sep 2006 11:43:31 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <3u9mfe.js3.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m3d59hz6nd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> In article <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> >>>> >>>> Acme Bicycle Safety Course >>>> >>>> 1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel >>>> so badly when they hit you >>> >>> "Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup >>> and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it >>> all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility. >> >> You're a comedian's perfect straight man. >> >> And I mean that as a compliment. >> >> It's so darn /good/, when the straight man is >> funnier than the wisecracker. >> >> Anyways, yeah -- ever notice how the most vocal >> pro-bicycle-helmet zealots are **car drivers**? >> >> Ever wonder /why/? >> >> I bet you drive a lot, don'cha? > > ------- > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> >>> In article <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>> >>> >> >>> >> Acme Bicycle Safety Course >>> >> >>> >> 1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel >>> >> so badly when they hit you >>> > >>> > "Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup >>> > and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it >>> > all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility. >>> >>> You're a comedian's perfect straight man. >> >> >> Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! And that facts are >> that the idiot I replied to really did make it all up. >> >>> Anyways, yeah -- ever notice how the most vocal >>> pro-bicycle-helmet zealots are **car drivers**? >>> >>> Ever wonder /why/? >>> >>> I bet you drive a lot, don'cha? >> >> More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >> on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >> but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. > > ------- > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >>> >>>> In article <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Acme Bicycle Safety Course >>>> >> >>>> >> 1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel >>>> >> so badly when they hit you >>>> > >>>> > "Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup >>>> > and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it >>>> > all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility. >>>> >>>> You're a comedian's perfect straight man. >>> >>> >>> Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! >> >> Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it >> unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, >> the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to >> X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. >> >>> And that facts are >>> that the idiot I replied to really did make it all up. >> >> I know what'cha mean. Especially about replying to idiots. >> >>>> Anyways, yeah -- ever notice how the most vocal >>>> pro-bicycle-helmet zealots are **car drivers**? >>>> >>>> Ever wonder /why/? >>>> >>>> I bet you drive a lot, don'cha? >>> >>> More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >>> on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >>> but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. >> >> hmmmmmm ... okay. >> >> I can take that for where it comes from. >> >> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I >> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, >> and the people who endorse it. >> >> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >> while you're out, driving your car. > > ------ > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> >>> In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >>> > >>> > Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! >>> >>> Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it >>> unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, >>> the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to >>> X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. >> >> Did you somehow modify the message ID or did your newsreader delete >> it? - that's what's used to fetch the original. >> >>> > >>> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >>> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >>> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. >>> >>> hmmmmmm ... okay. >>> I can take that for where it comes from. >> >>> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I >>> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, >>> and the people who endorse it. >> >> Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet use >> when they aren't (and when you refuse to admit that a google search >> will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet >> use), that generally would be considered lying. >> >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >>> while you're out, driving your car. >> >> Thus proving yourself to be a moron, and a dishonest one at >> that. > > ------- > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <4nrdfe.d9q2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <4nrdfe.d9q2.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >>> >>>> In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>>> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >>>> > >>>> > Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! >>>> >>>> Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it >>>> unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, >>>> the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to >>>> X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. >>> >>> Did you somehow modify the message ID or did your newsreader delete >>> it? >> >> No. >> >>> - that's what's used to fetch the original. >> >> Thanx for the edcucation :-/ >> >>>> > >>>> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >>>> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >>>> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. >>>> >>>> hmmmmmm ... okay. >>>> I can take that for where it comes from. >>> >>>> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I >>>> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, >>>> and the people who endorse it. >>> >>> Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet use >>> when they aren't >> >> If you're representative of all other helmet zealots >> (pro or anti,) you're a bloody waffler. So, therefore, >> are the lot of yez. >> >>> (and when you refuse to admit that a google search >>> will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet >>> use), that generally would be considered lying. >> >> Screw Google! Google is not the be-all/end-all of UseNet. >> >>>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >>>> while you're out, driving your car. >>> >>> Thus proving yourself to be a moron, and a dishonest one at >>> that. >> >> So now I'm a Nazi/liar/moron? Now I don't know whether >> to shit, or go blind. >> >> Again - just please try not to hurt or kill anybody while >> you're out driving your stoopid car. > > ------- > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <4nrdfe.d9q2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3d59hz6nd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <m3d59hz6nd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> >>> In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >>> > >>> >> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >>> >> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >>> >> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. >>> >> >>> >> hmmmmmm ... okay. >>> >> I can take that for where it comes from. >>> > >>> >> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I >>> >> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, >>> >> and the people who endorse it. >>> > >>> > Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet >>> > use when they aren't >>> >>> If you're representative of all other helmet zealots (pro or anti,) >>> you're a bloody waffler. So, therefore, are the lot of yez. >> >> The idea that helmets might do some good, but that decisions as to >> whether to use them should be left to the individual, is too much for >> you to accept (and is not at all the opinion that "zealots" hold as >> zealots typically can't deal with personal choice). >> >> >>> > (and when you refuse to admit that a google search >>> > will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet >>> > use), that generally would be considered lying. >>> < >>> Screw Google! Google is not the be-all/end-all of UseNet. >> >> I.e., you know there were no such posts > > Of course there weren't. Above material material proof of otherwise > notwithstanding. But if you deny it, it doesn't exist, eh? > >> and can't bring yourself >> to admit it. > > Sure. Maybe you should quietly go back to bed, okay? > >> Like many of the anti-helmet people, you need an >> "enemy" to blame, and if you can't find a real one, I guess you >> have to manufacture one. > > Ssshhhhhh. Don't worry. Everything's gonna be all right. > Everybody's gonna wear helmets, just like you want. > There are no enemies, only friends who smile & nod and > agree with you. > > Good night, sleep tight. Don't let the Nazis bite. Oh, yeah -- this li'l post doesn't exist either. Neither will the next. <heh > Anyways, I really would prefer that you keep your car-driver-perspective, pro-helmet, "you cylists have to be careful, because I won't be" perspective reigned-in, you lying moron. Note I didn't call you a Nazi. Note also I gotcha. heh. fuck head. Oh, no doubt you will squirm like a worm. But I got'cha. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 30 Sep 2006 20:00:34 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <3u9mfe.js3.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: Usenet kook Tom Keats is now talking to himself to himself <quote of his previous post snipped, except for the every last line > > > Good night, sleep tight. Don't let the Nazis bite. > Oh, yeah -- this li'l post doesn't exist either. > Neither will the next. > <heh> > Anyways, I really would prefer that you keep your > car-driver-perspective, pro-helmet, "you cylists > have to be careful, because I won't be" perspective > reigned-in, you lying moron. Note I didn't call you > a Nazi. > Note also I gotcha. > heh. > fuck head. > Oh, no doubt you will squirm like a worm. > But I got'cha. > -- > -- Nothing is safe from me. I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or merely delusional. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 30 Sep 2006 10:56:01 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <1159636914.757665.179100@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com writes: > > Wow1 A guy makes a simple statement and asks a simple question, and > from this you conclude that he a) is a car driver who thinks bicycles > have no place on the streets and b) is a vocal helmet proponent, mostly > so he will feel better about things when he hits a cyclist. > > Jump to conclusions absent any evidence much? ;-) George Conklin is a known quantity who a) is a car driver who thinks bicycles have no place on the streets, and b) whom, I opine, based on his previous statements, is a vocal helmet proponent, mostly so he will feel better about things when he hits a cyclist. I've encountered him and his lead-footed ilk before. In more ways than one. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca   Date: 30 Sep 2006 10:36:03 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m3d59hz6nd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general In article <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >>> >>> Acme Bicycle Safety Course >>> >>> 1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel >>> so badly when they hit you >> >> "Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup >> and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it >> all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility. > > You're a comedian's perfect straight man. > > And I mean that as a compliment. > > It's so darn /good/, when the straight man is > funnier than the wisecracker. > > Anyways, yeah -- ever notice how the most vocal > pro-bicycle-helmet zealots are **car drivers**? > > Ever wonder /why/? > > I bet you drive a lot, don'cha? ------- References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> >> >> >> >> Acme Bicycle Safety Course >> >> >> >> 1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel >> >> so badly when they hit you >> > >> > "Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup >> > and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it >> > all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility. >> >> You're a comedian's perfect straight man. > > > Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! And that facts are > that the idiot I replied to really did make it all up. > >> Anyways, yeah -- ever notice how the most vocal >> pro-bicycle-helmet zealots are **car drivers**? >> >> Ever wonder /why/? >> >> I bet you drive a lot, don'cha? > > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. ------- References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general In article <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> >>> In article <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>> >>> >> >>> >> Acme Bicycle Safety Course >>> >> >>> >> 1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel >>> >> so badly when they hit you >>> > >>> > "Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup >>> > and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it >>> > all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility. >>> >>> You're a comedian's perfect straight man. >> >> >> Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! > > Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it > unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, > the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to > X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. > >> And that facts are >> that the idiot I replied to really did make it all up. > > I know what'cha mean. Especially about replying to idiots. > >>> Anyways, yeah -- ever notice how the most vocal >>> pro-bicycle-helmet zealots are **car drivers**? >>> >>> Ever wonder /why/? >>> >>> I bet you drive a lot, don'cha? >> >> More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >> on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >> but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. > > hmmmmmm ... okay. > > I can take that for where it comes from. > > And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I > take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, > and the people who endorse it. > > Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > while you're out, driving your car. ------ References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> > >> > Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! >> >> Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it >> unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, >> the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to >> X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. > > Did you somehow modify the message ID or did your newsreader delete > it? - that's what's used to fetch the original. > >> > >> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. >> >> hmmmmmm ... okay. >> I can take that for where it comes from. > >> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I >> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, >> and the people who endorse it. > > Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet use > when they aren't (and when you refuse to admit that a google search > will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet > use), that generally would be considered lying. > >> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >> while you're out, driving your car. > > Thus proving yourself to be a moron, and a dishonest one at > that. ------- References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <4nrdfe.d9q2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general In article <4nrdfe.d9q2.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> >>> In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >>> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >>> > >>> > Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! >>> >>> Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it >>> unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, >>> the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to >>> X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. >> >> Did you somehow modify the message ID or did your newsreader delete >> it? > > No. > >> - that's what's used to fetch the original. > > Thanx for the edcucation :-/ > >>> > >>> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >>> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >>> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. >>> >>> hmmmmmm ... okay. >>> I can take that for where it comes from. >> >>> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I >>> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, >>> and the people who endorse it. >> >> Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet use >> when they aren't > > If you're representative of all other helmet zealots > (pro or anti,) you're a bloody waffler. So, therefore, > are the lot of yez. > >> (and when you refuse to admit that a google search >> will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet >> use), that generally would be considered lying. > > Screw Google! Google is not the be-all/end-all of UseNet. > >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >>> while you're out, driving your car. >> >> Thus proving yourself to be a moron, and a dishonest one at >> that. > > So now I'm a Nazi/liar/moron? Now I don't know whether > to shit, or go blind. > > Again - just please try not to hurt or kill anybody while > you're out driving your stoopid car. ------- References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > <4nrdfe.d9q2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> <m3d59hz6nd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general In article <m3d59hz6nd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> > >> >> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >> >> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >> >> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. >> >> >> >> hmmmmmm ... okay. >> >> I can take that for where it comes from. >> > >> >> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I >> >> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, >> >> and the people who endorse it. >> > >> > Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet >> > use when they aren't >> >> If you're representative of all other helmet zealots (pro or anti,) >> you're a bloody waffler. So, therefore, are the lot of yez. > > The idea that helmets might do some good, but that decisions as to > whether to use them should be left to the individual, is too much for > you to accept (and is not at all the opinion that "zealots" hold as > zealots typically can't deal with personal choice). > > >> > (and when you refuse to admit that a google search >> > will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet >> > use), that generally would be considered lying. >> >> Screw Google! Google is not the be-all/end-all of UseNet. > > I.e., you know there were no such posts Of course there weren't. Above material material proof of otherwise notwithstanding. But if you deny it, it doesn't exist, eh? > and can't bring yourself > to admit it. Sure. Maybe you should quietly go back to bed, okay? > Like many of the anti-helmet people, you need an > "enemy" to blame, and if you can't find a real one, I guess you > have to manufacture one. Ssshhhhhh. Don't worry. Everything's gonna be all right. Everybody's gonna wear helmets, just like you want. There are no enemies, only friends who smile & nod and agree with you. Good night, sleep tight. Don't let the Nazis bite. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 30 Sep 2006 19:56:26 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: [Copied from from below and put here so that people can actually find it in all the verbiage] > >> > (and when you refuse to admit that a google search > >> > will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet > >> > use), that generally would be considered lying. > >> > >> Screw Google! Google is not the be-all/end-all of UseNet. > > > > I.e., you know there were no such posts > > Of course there weren't. Above material material proof of otherwise > notwithstanding. But if you deny it, it doesn't exist, eh? In the hope of confusing the issue, Tom Keats produced a whole series of his posts as "evidence" when in fact none of the posts contain a single sentence in which I "promoted" helmets - not one where I suggested that people should use them. Using Keat's "logic", someone would be promoting seatbelts by merely saying that seatbelts aren't useless. He is trying the usenet tactic of "dazzling them with bullshit". The idea is to create a very long post so that everone forgets who said what, and then make a false claim about someone, hoping that readers will be stupid enough to believe it. Let's see Tom Keats produce a *single* post in which he thinks I "promoted" helmets, provide the message ID for that post, and a *single* sentence from me that will show this alleged "helmet promotion". That shouldn't be hard for him to do if he really thinks such posts exist. [actual start of Keat's post] > In article <m3d59hz6nd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: Note that the list of articles below were all posts from Tom Keats, pasted into his 'reply' by Tom Keats, and contains no direct quotes of any post from me. Search for "From:" and you'll find all of the cited posts below were written by Keats himself. > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > In article <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > > >>> > >>> Acme Bicycle Safety Course > >>> > >>> 1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel > >>> so badly when they hit you > >> > >> "Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup > >> and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it > >> all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility. > > > > You're a comedian's perfect straight man. > > > > And I mean that as a compliment. > > > > It's so darn /good/, when the straight man is > > funnier than the wisecracker. > > > > Anyways, yeah -- ever notice how the most vocal > > pro-bicycle-helmet zealots are **car drivers**? > > > > Ever wonder /why/? > > > > I bet you drive a lot, don'cha? > > ------- > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> In article <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >> > >> >> > >> >> Acme Bicycle Safety Course > >> >> > >> >> 1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel > >> >> so badly when they hit you > >> > > >> > "Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup > >> > and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it > >> > all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility. > >> > >> You're a comedian's perfect straight man. > > > > > > Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! And that facts are > > that the idiot I replied to really did make it all up. > > > >> Anyways, yeah -- ever notice how the most vocal > >> pro-bicycle-helmet zealots are **car drivers**? > >> > >> Ever wonder /why/? > >> > >> I bet you drive a lot, don'cha? > > > > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word > > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, > > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. > > ------- > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> > >>> In article <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> Acme Bicycle Safety Course > >>> >> > >>> >> 1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel > >>> >> so badly when they hit you > >>> > > >>> > "Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup > >>> > and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it > >>> > all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility. > >>> > >>> You're a comedian's perfect straight man. > >> > >> > >> Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! > > > > Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it > > unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, > > the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to > > X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. > > > >> And that facts are > >> that the idiot I replied to really did make it all up. > > > > I know what'cha mean. Especially about replying to idiots. > > > >>> Anyways, yeah -- ever notice how the most vocal > >>> pro-bicycle-helmet zealots are **car drivers**? > >>> > >>> Ever wonder /why/? > >>> > >>> I bet you drive a lot, don'cha? > >> > >> More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word > >> on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, > >> but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. > > > > hmmmmmm ... okay. > > > > I can take that for where it comes from. > > > > And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I > > take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, > > and the people who endorse it. > > > > Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > > while you're out, driving your car. > > ------ > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> > > >> > Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! > >> > >> Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it > >> unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, > >> the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to > >> X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. > > > > Did you somehow modify the message ID or did your newsreader delete > > it? - that's what's used to fetch the original. > > > >> > > >> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word > >> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, > >> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. > >> > >> hmmmmmm ... okay. > >> I can take that for where it comes from. > > > >> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I > >> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, > >> and the people who endorse it. > > > > Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet use > > when they aren't (and when you refuse to admit that a google search > > will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet > > use), that generally would be considered lying. > > > >> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > >> while you're out, driving your car. > > > > Thus proving yourself to be a moron, and a dishonest one at > > that. > > ------- > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <4nrdfe.d9q2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <4nrdfe.d9q2.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> > >>> In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >>> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >>> > > >>> > Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! > >>> > >>> Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it > >>> unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, > >>> the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to > >>> X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. > >> > >> Did you somehow modify the message ID or did your newsreader delete > >> it? > > > > No. > > > >> - that's what's used to fetch the original. > > > > Thanx for the edcucation :-/ > > > >>> > > >>> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word > >>> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, > >>> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. > >>> > >>> hmmmmmm ... okay. > >>> I can take that for where it comes from. > >> > >>> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I > >>> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, > >>> and the people who endorse it. > >> > >> Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet use > >> when they aren't > > > > If you're representative of all other helmet zealots > > (pro or anti,) you're a bloody waffler. So, therefore, > > are the lot of yez. > > > >> (and when you refuse to admit that a google search > >> will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet > >> use), that generally would be considered lying. > > > > Screw Google! Google is not the be-all/end-all of UseNet. > > > >>> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) > >>> while you're out, driving your car. > >> > >> Thus proving yourself to be a moron, and a dishonest one at > >> that. > > > > So now I'm a Nazi/liar/moron? Now I don't know whether > > to shit, or go blind. > > > > Again - just please try not to hurt or kill anybody while > > you're out driving your stoopid car. > > ------- > > References: <1158243639.694982.217460@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> > <m3d59ybfvz.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <i71jg259qdl6kffkpocv7u49h04q743v09@4ax.com> > <m3hcz991k5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > <eee3eg$fb4$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> > <m3psdxc859.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <ntffee.g6i1.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3y7sjbm16.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <van4fe.00d2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <7385fe.mkd2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <4nrdfe.d9q2.ln@vcn.bc.ca> > <m3d59hz6nd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > From: tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) > Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! > Newsgroups: nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general > > In article <m3d59hz6nd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> > > >> >> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word > >> >> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, > >> >> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. > >> >> > >> >> hmmmmmm ... okay. > >> >> I can take that for where it comes from. > >> > > >> >> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I > >> >> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, > >> >> and the people who endorse it. > >> > > >> > Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet > >> > use when they aren't > >> > >> If you're representative of all other helmet zealots (pro or anti,) > >> you're a bloody waffler. So, therefore, are the lot of yez. > > > > The idea that helmets might do some good, but that decisions as to > > whether to use them should be left to the individual, is too much for > > you to accept (and is not at all the opinion that "zealots" hold as > > zealots typically can't deal with personal choice). > > > > > >> > (and when you refuse to admit that a google search > >> > will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet > >> > use), that generally would be considered lying. > >> > >> Screw Google! Google is not the be-all/end-all of UseNet. > > > > I.e., you know there were no such posts > > Of course there weren't. Above material material proof of otherwise > notwithstanding. But if you deny it, it doesn't exist, eh? > > > and can't bring yourself > > to admit it. > > Sure. Maybe you should quietly go back to bed, okay? > > > Like many of the anti-helmet people, you need an > > "enemy" to blame, and if you can't find a real one, I guess you > > have to manufacture one. > > Ssshhhhhh. Don't worry. Everything's gonna be all right. > Everybody's gonna wear helmets, just like you want. > There are no enemies, only friends who smile & nod and > agree with you. > > Good night, sleep tight. Don't let the Nazis bite. > Keats sure made a fool of himself. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 30 Sep 2006 10:21:54 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Tom Keats wrote: > In article <GcwTg.8087$UG4.6325@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> writes: > > > Wearing a helmet can cause no harm and probably will save lives. What is all > > this noise about anyway? > > 1) So many car drivers such as yourself feel aggregiously & unfairly > emburdened, what with speed limits, car insurance, gas taxes, > having to be careful, etc. So you car drivers want other road users > such as cyclists to also be eggregiously emburdened. So you think we > should have to wear stupid styrofoam egg carton material[*] on our > heads or suffer some sort of inconvenience or indignity, to at least > partially make up for our use of streets & roads without, according > to your perceptions, /paying/ for them -- which is, of course, a > totally erroneous idea, which has been pointed-out time & time again. > > [*] that egg carton material doesn't even protect eggs very well. > > 2) You car drivers want everything so stoopid-easy. You think if > we're wearing our lightweight, friable, egg-carton helmets, if you > "accidentally" hit us in a typical moment of inattention, we'll > be okay, so you'll have nothing to worry about, and less to have > to be careful about. > > It doesn't work that way. > > You're a car driver, and you're a (yet another) vocal bicycle > helmet proponent. You make my point for me. > > > And that's what all this noise is all about. > > Just fuckin' realize streets & roads aren't exclusively for cars. > > Wow1 A guy makes a simple statement and asks a simple question, and from this you conclude that he a) is a car driver who thinks bicycles have no place on the streets and b) is a vocal helmet proponent, mostly so he will feel better about things when he hits a cyclist. Jump to conclusions absent any evidence much? ;-)     Date: 30 Sep 2006 19:39:19 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com writes: > Tom Keats wrote: > > In article <GcwTg.8087$UG4.6325@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> writes: > > > > > Wearing a helmet can cause no harm and probably will save > > > lives. What is all this noise about anyway? > > > > 1) So many car drivers such as yourself feel aggregiously & unfairly > > emburdened, what with speed limits, car insurance, gas taxes, > > having to be careful, etc. <snip> > > > > 2) You car drivers want everything so stoopid-easy. <snip> > > Wow1 A guy makes a simple statement and asks a simple question, and > from this you conclude that he a) is a car driver who thinks bicycles > have no place on the streets and b) is a vocal helmet proponent, mostly > so he will feel better about things when he hits a cyclist. While George Conklin is in fact usenet kook, I got the same reaction from someone (Tom Keats, if I recall correctly) who accused me of being a "car driver" unconcerned about cyclists, merely because I thought that using a helmet is a reasonable choice a cyclist might make, and because I don't think you have to pretend that helmets are useless to justify a decision not to wear one. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 30 Sep 2006 10:04:31 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! George Conklin wrote: > > > Wearing a helmet can cause no harm and probably will save lives. What is all > this noise about anyway? It's about the fact that your "probably will save lives" is mistaken, unless you're talking about statistically improbable miracles. It's about the delusion that bicycling is very hazardous, and the delusion that 3/4" of styrofoam is absolutely necessary, almost magical protection. It's about the fact that helmets will (probably) cause no harm and probably save many more lives if we get pedestrians and motorists to wear them, rather than cyclists. It's about the fact that bicyclists constitute less than 1% of the head injury fatalities in America. It's about the fact that helmets are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem. If you want to wear one anyway, for _any_ activity, strap it on. It's your choice. But some of us are anti-hype, and some of us are against the slander of bicycling that always seems to go along with helmet promotion. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 30 Sep 2006 09:30:02 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <GcwTg.8087$UG4.6325@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > writes: > Wearing a helmet can cause no harm and probably will save lives. What is all > this noise about anyway? 1) So many car drivers such as yourself feel aggregiously & unfairly emburdened, what with speed limits, car insurance, gas taxes, having to be careful, etc. So you car drivers want other road users such as cyclists to also be eggregiously emburdened. So you think we should have to wear stupid styrofoam egg carton material[*] on our heads or suffer some sort of inconvenience or indignity, to at least partially make up for our use of streets & roads without, according to your perceptions, /paying/ for them -- which is, of course, a totally erroneous idea, which has been pointed-out time & time again. [*] that egg carton material doesn't even protect eggs very well. 2) You car drivers want everything so stoopid-easy. You think if we're wearing our lightweight, friable, egg-carton helmets, if you "accidentally" hit us in a typical moment of inattention, we'll be okay, so you'll have nothing to worry about, and less to have to be careful about. It doesn't work that way. You're a car driver, and you're a (yet another) vocal bicycle helmet proponent. You make my point for me. And that's what all this noise is all about. Just fuckin' realize streets & roads aren't exclusively for cars. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca   Date: 29 Sep 2006 19:54:52 From: Lo Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > The problem is that the population studies don't show what you want them > to show. There is a reduction in injury and fatalities over whole > populations. What the AHZs try to say, without evidence, is that the > reason for the decrease in injury and fatalities is that cycling becomes > much less prevalent when helmet laws are introduced. They use junk > science to support this claim. Standing on a street corner and counting > cyclists before and after a helmet law is junk science, and they know it. What about looking at percentages with and without head injuries? One example is at: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1093 If helmets were responsible for the reduction in head injuries, what caused the reduction in non-head injuries? The main reductions in cycling are from enforced laws, where police issue fines for non-helmet wearing, as they do for speeding motorists. In Victoria (the source of this dataset) about 20,000 cyclists are fined every year. The dataset shown has an interesting history in that, the previous year, researchers considered the percentage of cyclist hospital admissions involving some form of head injury and reported that it was no different to what would have happened without the law. We can speculate that people whose reputations depended on the law being considered a success weren't too happy, so the next year, they analysed numbers of head injuries and reported that they fell by 40%! In that particular dataset, a head injury case was defined as a hospital admission with some injury to the head (even if not the reason for admission) so some may have been superficial wounds - the sort that everyone agrees helmets prevent. The next table contains a different dataset - deaths and serious injuries to cyclists and pedestrians who were hit by motor vehicles. In this case, data are classified according to the most serious injury. So, in the first dataset, a cyclist with a wound to the head and compound fracture of the leg that needed traction would be counted as a head injury. In the second dataset, it was counted as a leg injury. I can see a reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries over and above the reduction for pedestrians, but the effect is no greater for head injuries than non-head injuries. So why do you think helmets were responsible?     Date: 30 Sep 2006 12:58:58 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On 29 Sep 2006 19:54:52 -0700, "Lo" <d.loreli@hotmail.com > wrote: >SMS wrote: >> The problem is that the population studies don't show what you want them >> to show. There is a reduction in injury and fatalities over whole >> populations. What the AHZs try to say, without evidence, is that the >> reason for the decrease in injury and fatalities is that cycling becomes >> much less prevalent when helmet laws are introduced. They use junk >> science to support this claim. Standing on a street corner and counting >> cyclists before and after a helmet law is junk science, and they know it. > >What about looking at percentages with and without head injuries? One >example is at: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1093 > >If helmets were responsible for the reduction in head injuries, what >caused the reduction in non-head injuries? > > >I can see a reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries >over and above the reduction for pedestrians, but the effect is no >greater for head injuries than non-head injuries. > >So why do you think helmets were responsible? Simple. Foam hats have magic powers.       Date: 30 Sep 2006 15:39:18 From: George Conklin Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:ofqsh2tc7qnmtesdage2hqufihnk36pkh0@4ax.com... > On 29 Sep 2006 19:54:52 -0700, "Lo" <d.loreli@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >SMS wrote: > >> The problem is that the population studies don't show what you want them > >> to show. There is a reduction in injury and fatalities over whole > >> populations. What the AHZs try to say, without evidence, is that the > >> reason for the decrease in injury and fatalities is that cycling becomes > >> much less prevalent when helmet laws are introduced. They use junk > >> science to support this claim. Standing on a street corner and counting > >> cyclists before and after a helmet law is junk science, and they know it. > > > >What about looking at percentages with and without head injuries? One > >example is at: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1093 > > > >If helmets were responsible for the reduction in head injuries, what > >caused the reduction in non-head injuries? > > > > > > >I can see a reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries > >over and above the reduction for pedestrians, but the effect is no > >greater for head injuries than non-head injuries. > > > >So why do you think helmets were responsible? > > Simple. > > Foam hats have magic powers. > Wearing a helmet can cause no harm and probably will save lives. What is all this noise about anyway?         Date: 01 Oct 2006 13:06:00 From: Stephen Harding Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! George Conklin wrote: > Wearing a helmet can cause no harm and probably will save lives. What is all > this noise about anyway? That's possibly true. But it would also likely be true while driving your car or just walking around your house or neighborhood (surprising numbers of head injuries occur there). It all boils down to your perception of risk. Is riding your bike so dangerous that you don't dare get on one without a helmet? Some people apparently feel it is. Often, these people are bicycle enthusiasts themselves I'm sorry to say (why a bike enthusiast would aid in portraying their activity as so dangerous is strange to me). Head injuries most certainly do happen in automobile crashes as well as other activities, so a helmet wouldn't be a terrible thing to wear there as well. People don't because they feel that motoring isn't dangerous enough to demand it, or that the vehicle restraints (airbags and seatbelts) do the job as well in place of a helmet (even though the airbags can themselves actually cause a head injury). I feel the "helmet must be worn while bicycling" crowd has amplified the risk to one's head of that activity. Whether a helmet really protects or not is secondary to whether your head is really that much at risk while pedaling in the first place! SMH         Date: 01 Oct 2006 00:06:28 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:39:18 GMT, "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote: > ><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >news:ofqsh2tc7qnmtesdage2hqufihnk36pkh0@4ax.com... >> On 29 Sep 2006 19:54:52 -0700, "Lo" <d.loreli@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >SMS wrote: >> >> The problem is that the population studies don't show what you want >them >> >> to show. There is a reduction in injury and fatalities over whole >> >> populations. What the AHZs try to say, without evidence, is that the >> >> reason for the decrease in injury and fatalities is that cycling >becomes >> >> much less prevalent when helmet laws are introduced. They use junk >> >> science to support this claim. Standing on a street corner and counting >> >> cyclists before and after a helmet law is junk science, and they know >it. >> > >> >What about looking at percentages with and without head injuries? One >> >example is at: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1093 >> > >> >If helmets were responsible for the reduction in head injuries, what >> >caused the reduction in non-head injuries? >> > >> >> > >> >I can see a reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries >> >over and above the reduction for pedestrians, but the effect is no >> >greater for head injuries than non-head injuries. >> > >> >So why do you think helmets were responsible? >> >> Simple. >> >> Foam hats have magic powers. >> > >Wearing a helmet can cause no harm Are you sure about that? Look up "rotational injury"... >         Date: 30 Sep 2006 15:44:08 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! George Conklin wrote: > Wearing a helmet can cause no harm and probably will save lives. What > is all this noise about anyway? Two 'f' words: Frank 'n Flailor. HTH ROTFL     Date: 29 Sep 2006 23:05:29 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Lo wrote: > SMS wrote: >> The problem is that the population studies don't show what you want them >> to show. There is a reduction in injury and fatalities over whole >> populations. What the AHZs try to say, without evidence, is that the >> reason for the decrease in injury and fatalities is that cycling becomes >> much less prevalent when helmet laws are introduced. They use junk >> science to support this claim. Standing on a street corner and counting >> cyclists before and after a helmet law is junk science, and they know it. > > What about looking at percentages with and without head injuries? One > example is at: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1093 That web site is a prime example of the absurd lengths that the AHZs will go to, and their total lack of knowledge of scientific methodology. "Therefore, the effect of the law was mainly to discourage cycling, rather than prevent head injuries when crashes occurred." At first I could not believe that they were actually trying to make that deduction from the data, then I remembered who the people behind that site were.   Date: 29 Sep 2006 18:37:02 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > > > > That's not what you claimed. > > > > I believe everyone else can understand what I claimed. If it's _not_ > > clear to any non-Zaumen, feel free to ask for even more clarification. > > I believe you are spinning as usual and falling into your > Karl-Rove-wannabe mode of trying to swift-boat anyone who disagrees > with your silly agenda. > > Yep, he's just being the condescending Pompous Gasbag we all know and loathe.   Date: 29 Sep 2006 13:35:15 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > > > That's not what you claimed. You claimed the standards were first set > > to meet what the manufacturers could do, and in subsequent years they > > continued to meet the standards by reducing the weight and comfort > > of the helmets. > > In any case, Frank is incorrect. There are still helmets that meet the > original standards (and are tested to them), without the hard plastic > shell. You need to re-read what I wrote. The point was not that the standards have moved. (They have not shifted substantially, at least since the weaker ANSI standard was effectively withdrawn.) What has happened is that helmet makers have learned to build them weaker and weaker (i.e. lighter, cooler) while _just_ passing the standard. Older helmets, and cheaper helmets today, exceed the standard by a larger gin than the most sophisticated modern helmets. And the obvious corollary is that on average, helmets have gotten weaker over the years. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 29 Sep 2006 23:10:50 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > SMS wrote: > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > > You need to re-read what I wrote. > > The point was not that the standards have moved. (They have not > shifted substantially, at least since the weaker ANSI standard was > effectively withdrawn.) > > What has happened is that helmet makers have learned to build them > weaker and weaker (i.e. lighter, cooler) while _just_ passing the > standard. Older helmets, and cheaper helmets today, exceed the > standard by a larger gin than the most sophisticated modern helmets. > This is shear BS. You can't make the helmets weaker and weaker while (the whole time) *just* passing the starndard. "Just passing the standard" sets the strength of the helmet. What the manufacturers have done is to respond to ket pressure and give people what they want - lighter and cooler helmets with the same strength as before. > And the obvious corollary is that on average, helmets have gotten > weaker over the years. Simply not the obvious corollary. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 29 Sep 2006 13:30:24 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! gds wrote: > > > Thanks for the response. And I'll just add the comment that your > constantly going back to the 85% issue strikes me as the same sort of > diversion as the MHL issue. I see virtually no one (here) arguing for > that. Most folks who believe in helemts are in fact taking postions > very much like the one youespouse. They don't want MHL's and they are > not living or dying by the 85% number. I just wonder why you bring it > up all the time. It may be approriate for some audiences but seems > wasted effort in this context. My continued mention of the "85%" occurs specifically because almost all sources promoting helmets make that ludicrous claim. And that's not just helmet _law_ promoters - it's helmet promoters of almost every stripe. It's been suggested that the claim be used for a litmus test. That is, if a source claims that helmets are 85% effective (or even "up to 85% effective"), whatever else that source says should be viewed with suspicion. And while most people here are "not living or dying by the 85% number," I'll bet many have no idea that it's a ludicrous claim. They have never read the tiny study on which it's based, they have never read the extreme criticisms of that study's methods, and they don't realize that its claims have never been verified in any population that's acted as a reasonable test. I promise, if you can get helmet promoters to stop making that claim, I won't mention it again! - Frank Krygowski   Date: 29 Sep 2006 10:33:48 From: gds Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > gds wrote: > > > > > > OK Frank then, and not to be argumentative but to really try to > > understand your position. > > That's fine. > > > At its basis you are arguing that cycling isn't very dangerous so all > > this concern about helmets is energy wasted. Right? > > Yes, exactly. If you want more detail, ordinary cycling is not > dangerous if not done stupidly. It actually seems to be safer than > walking, at least near traffic. (I make no claims for riding against > traffic through red lights, nor for bombing offroad downhills at 45+ > mph.) > > > > > Beyond that you argue that helmets are not very effective, so they > > provide little or no protection in the (rare) case where a cyclist > > would fall and hit their head. > > Well, "little" protection is more accurate. I'm not aware of anyone > saying "no protection." "Little protection" certainly seems true, > based on large population data. > > > > > However, you also state that you feel that certain types of cycling are > > of higher risk,( i.e. crits, single track) and that in those instances > > you personally would wear a helmet. > > My position there is slightly different than what you say. I will not > race a criterium. (OK, I'm almost 60 years old; but I've always > thought criterium races were too risky for me.) > > "Single track" has a variety of risk levels. When I did a fair amount > of mountain biking, it was almost all single track. But it was almost > all fairly slow speed and well within my control. The times I crashed > were never any serious danger to my head, bones or life. (In fact, I > never hit my head at all. Think of it as more "observed trials" than > "gonzo downhill".) Had I hit my head, those off-road crashes would > have been within the helmet's meager level of protection. > > > > > I'm just wondering why with your low respect for the efficacy of > > helmets you choose to do so. Sure, the risk of a fall may be higher for > > these activities but you are also arguing that the helmets don't work > > much anyhow. > > Correct - they don't work "much." My off-road riding is/was at the > level where they seem to work - the bump, bruise and scrape level, not > the terrible head injury level. Although I never actually tested the > protection. > > > > > I must conclude that you feel that at least during some cycling > > activities that a helmet is warranted (by your personal standards) and > > by making that choice it seems that by implication you feel that the > > helmet has at least some effectivenes--that is it is better than > > nothing. > > Oh, I do believe it's better than nothing! (I also believe a thick > stocking cap is better than nothing - and I can produce anecdotes to > "prove" that, if you'll let me descend to the level of certain helmet > proponents!) > > > So, I then wonder why it is you seem to attack others who use the > > exactly the same logic but who might have a differint risk > > assessment/tolerance than you so that they choose to wear a helmet in a > > broader range of cycling activities. > > >From what I can see, there is precious little helmet promotion that's > based on "Better Than Nothing." Instead, I see promotion based on > "Prevents Up To 85% Of Head Injuries" - with the deliberately > misleading implication that those are _serious_ head injuries, or even > fatalities. And it always seems coupled with "And Bicycling Is Really, > Really Dangerous, So You MUST Wear A Helmet." > > This is not the same logic I use. In fact, it's quite the opposite. > > One final point: Personally, I think the high-risk modes of cycling > are stupid. I mean things like a downhill offroad race (you know, 45+ > mph). Now if a person's "risk assessment/tolerance" approves of that, > and they choose to do it, I won't try to outlaw it. It's their choice. > > But if they were to justify it by saying how protective their helmets > are, or how safe the activity actually is, I'll want to discuss facts > and data. And that's where most of these discussions really occur. > > Likewise, anyone is free to stitch up their own lycra Superman suit and > try to fly. But when they come on here and tell us it makes them > bulletproof, I'm likely to disagree. > > Hope this helps. > > - Frank Krygowski Thanks for the response. And I'll just add the comment that your constantly going back to the 85% issue strikes me as the same sort of diversion as the MHL issue. I see virtually no one (here) arguing for that. Most folks who believe in helemts are in fact taking postions very much like the one youespouse. They don't want MHL's and they are not living or dying by the 85% number. I just wonder why you bring it up all the time. It may be approriate for some audiences but seems wasted effort in this context.   Date: 29 Sep 2006 10:09:29 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > Bill Z. wrote: > > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > > > > > > But manufacturers of expensive helmets have done wonderful things with > > > > computerized stress analysis, impact simulation, etc. They've cut the > > > > weight of their helmets in half - while still skimming just above the > > > > impact criterion. > > > > > > I.e., they kept the helmets as strong as before ... > > > > No, Bill, read it again. They did NOT keep the helmets "as strong as > > before." They reduced the strength down to the minimum the standard > > allows. They did this to save weight, to give more vent holes - and to > > look more "racy." > > That's not what you claimed. I believe everyone else can understand what I claimed. If it's _not_ clear to any non-Zaumen, feel free to ask for even more clarification. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 29 Sep 2006 23:06:10 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > That's not what you claimed. > > I believe everyone else can understand what I claimed. If it's _not_ > clear to any non-Zaumen, feel free to ask for even more clarification. I believe you are spinning as usual and falling into your Karl-Rove-wannabe mode of trying to swift-boat anyone who disagrees with your silly agenda. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 29 Sep 2006 10:06:47 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! gds wrote: > > > OK Frank then, and not to be argumentative but to really try to > understand your position. That's fine. > At its basis you are arguing that cycling isn't very dangerous so all > this concern about helmets is energy wasted. Right? Yes, exactly. If you want more detail, ordinary cycling is not dangerous if not done stupidly. It actually seems to be safer than walking, at least near traffic. (I make no claims for riding against traffic through red lights, nor for bombing offroad downhills at 45+ mph.) > > Beyond that you argue that helmets are not very effective, so they > provide little or no protection in the (rare) case where a cyclist > would fall and hit their head. Well, "little" protection is more accurate. I'm not aware of anyone saying "no protection." "Little protection" certainly seems true, based on large population data. > > However, you also state that you feel that certain types of cycling are > of higher risk,( i.e. crits, single track) and that in those instances > you personally would wear a helmet. My position there is slightly different than what you say. I will not race a criterium. (OK, I'm almost 60 years old; but I've always thought criterium races were too risky for me.) "Single track" has a variety of risk levels. When I did a fair amount of mountain biking, it was almost all single track. But it was almost all fairly slow speed and well within my control. The times I crashed were never any serious danger to my head, bones or life. (In fact, I never hit my head at all. Think of it as more "observed trials" than "gonzo downhill".) Had I hit my head, those off-road crashes would have been within the helmet's meager level of protection. > > I'm just wondering why with your low respect for the efficacy of > helmets you choose to do so. Sure, the risk of a fall may be higher for > these activities but you are also arguing that the helmets don't work > much anyhow. Correct - they don't work "much." My off-road riding is/was at the level where they seem to work - the bump, bruise and scrape level, not the terrible head injury level. Although I never actually tested the protection. > > I must conclude that you feel that at least during some cycling > activities that a helmet is warranted (by your personal standards) and > by making that choice it seems that by implication you feel that the > helmet has at least some effectivenes--that is it is better than > nothing. Oh, I do believe it's better than nothing! (I also believe a thick stocking cap is better than nothing - and I can produce anecdotes to "prove" that, if you'll let me descend to the level of certain helmet proponents!) > So, I then wonder why it is you seem to attack others who use the > exactly the same logic but who might have a differint risk > assessment/tolerance than you so that they choose to wear a helmet in a > broader range of cycling activities. >From what I can see, there is precious little helmet promotion that's based on "Better Than Nothing." Instead, I see promotion based on "Prevents Up To 85% Of Head Injuries" - with the deliberately misleading implication that those are _serious_ head injuries, or even fatalities. And it always seems coupled with "And Bicycling Is Really, Really Dangerous, So You MUST Wear A Helmet." This is not the same logic I use. In fact, it's quite the opposite. One final point: Personally, I think the high-risk modes of cycling are stupid. I mean things like a downhill offroad race (you know, 45+ mph). Now if a person's "risk assessment/tolerance" approves of that, and they choose to do it, I won't try to outlaw it. It's their choice. But if they were to justify it by saying how protective their helmets are, or how safe the activity actually is, I'll want to discuss facts and data. And that's where most of these discussions really occur. Likewise, anyone is free to stitch up their own lycra Superman suit and try to fly. But when they come on here and tell us it makes them bulletproof, I'm likely to disagree. Hope this helps. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 29 Sep 2006 08:55:05 From: gds Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > gds wrote: > > > > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But manufacturers of expensive helmets have done wonderful things with > > > computerized stress analysis, impact simulation, etc. They've cut the > > > weight of their helmets in half - while still skimming just above the > > > impact criterion. > > > > I.e., they kept the helmets as strong as before ... > > No, Bill, read it again. They did NOT keep the helmets "as strong as > before." They reduced the strength down to the minimum the standard > allows. They did this to save weight, to give more vent holes - and to > look more "racy." > > Please note, they are trying to sell product. Protecting your head is > obviously secondary. > > > > One more detail: Knowledge of head injuries has increased over the > > > decades. It's now widely believed that rotational accelerations (from > > > glancing blows) are much, much more damaging than linear impacts. But > > > the bike helmet standard does nothing to address those rotational > > > accelerations. And, as has been mentioned, there's some chance that > > > helmets actually make those worse. > > > > A bike helmet may reduce the torque on the head as the foam lining is > > more slippery than asphalt, and the straps, even when properly cinched, > > allow for a little movement. > > > > Krygowski's argument is unsubtantiated BS. > > :-) Interesting that you claim that - since I don't see you providing > any subsantiation for your BS! > > The phrase "foam lining is more slippery than asphalt" is meaningless. > The friction comparison must be made between asphalt and another > material, under the conditions of a glancing blow. > > A bareheaded person is less likely to suffer a glancing blow to the > head, for the simple reason his head is smaller than a helmet. IOW, > there will be near misses with a bare head that would be glancing, > torquing impacts with a helmet. > > But if a bareheaded person does suffer a glancing blow, evolution > (and/or creation!) has provided defense mechanisms. Hair slips and > tears. When necessary, the scalp does the same. The tissues beneath > the scalp are slippery indeed. Messy, but effective. > > The helmet doesn't have those mechanisms. There's certainly the > possibility that asphalt's rough texture can interlock with the > microshell and the styrofoam, giving a high coefficient of friction. > > So I doubt the helmet is "more slippery" than the hair and scalp, when > both are impacted by asphalt. And in any case, it's obvious to almost > everyone that the helmet is a larger target to hit, and one which > provides a larger moment arm for rotational forces. > > Again, helmet standards don't test for rotation at all. That may be > part of the reason that tremendous increases in helmet use have not led > to reduction in serious head injuries per rider. > > - Frank Krygowski OK Frank then, and not to be argumentative but to really try to understand your position. At its basis you are arguing that cycling isn't very dangerous so all this concern about helmets is energy wasted. Right? Beyond that you argue that helmets are not very effective, so they provide little or no protection in the (rare) case where a cyclist would fall and hit their head. However, you also state that you feel that certain types of cycling are of higher risk,( i.e. crits, single track) and that in those instances you personally would wear a helmet. I'm just wondering why with your low respect for the efficacy of helmets you choose to do so. Sure, the risk of a fall may be higher for these activities but you are also arguing that the helmets don't work much anyhow. I must conclude that you feel that at least during some cycling activities that a helmet is warranted (by your personal standards) and by making that choice it seems that by implication you feel that the helmet has at least some effectivenes--that is it is better than nothing. So, I then wonder why it is you seem to attack others who use the exactly the same logic but who might have a differint risk assessment/tolerance than you so that they choose to wear a helmet in a broader range of cycling activities. Forget MHL's I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about individuals making a personal choice.   Date: 29 Sep 2006 07:58:30 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > gds wrote: > > > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > But manufacturers of expensive helmets have done wonderful things with > > computerized stress analysis, impact simulation, etc. They've cut the > > weight of their helmets in half - while still skimming just above the > > impact criterion. > > I.e., they kept the helmets as strong as before ... No, Bill, read it again. They did NOT keep the helmets "as strong as before." They reduced the strength down to the minimum the standard allows. They did this to save weight, to give more vent holes - and to look more "racy." Please note, they are trying to sell product. Protecting your head is obviously secondary. > > One more detail: Knowledge of head injuries has increased over the > > decades. It's now widely believed that rotational accelerations (from > > glancing blows) are much, much more damaging than linear impacts. But > > the bike helmet standard does nothing to address those rotational > > accelerations. And, as has been mentioned, there's some chance that > > helmets actually make those worse. > > A bike helmet may reduce the torque on the head as the foam lining is > more slippery than asphalt, and the straps, even when properly cinched, > allow for a little movement. > > Krygowski's argument is unsubtantiated BS. :-) Interesting that you claim that - since I don't see you providing any subsantiation for your BS! The phrase "foam lining is more slippery than asphalt" is meaningless. The friction comparison must be made between asphalt and another material, under the conditions of a glancing blow. A bareheaded person is less likely to suffer a glancing blow to the head, for the simple reason his head is smaller than a helmet. IOW, there will be near misses with a bare head that would be glancing, torquing impacts with a helmet. But if a bareheaded person does suffer a glancing blow, evolution (and/or creation!) has provided defense mechanisms. Hair slips and tears. When necessary, the scalp does the same. The tissues beneath the scalp are slippery indeed. Messy, but effective. The helmet doesn't have those mechanisms. There's certainly the possibility that asphalt's rough texture can interlock with the microshell and the styrofoam, giving a high coefficient of friction. So I doubt the helmet is "more slippery" than the hair and scalp, when both are impacted by asphalt. And in any case, it's obvious to almost everyone that the helmet is a larger target to hit, and one which provides a larger moment arm for rotational forces. Again, helmet standards don't test for rotation at all. That may be part of the reason that tremendous increases in helmet use have not led to reduction in serious head injuries per rider. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 29 Sep 2006 16:42:05 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > > > > > gds wrote: > > > > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But manufacturers of expensive helmets have done wonderful things with > > > computerized stress analysis, impact simulation, etc. They've cut the > > > weight of their helmets in half - while still skimming just above the > > > impact criterion. > > > > I.e., they kept the helmets as strong as before ... > > No, Bill, read it again. They did NOT keep the helmets "as strong as > before." They reduced the strength down to the minimum the standard > allows. They did this to save weight, to give more vent holes - and to > look more "racy." That's not what you claimed. You claimed the standards were first set to meet what the manufacturers could do, and in subsequent years they continued to meet the standards by reducing the weight and comfort of the helmets. > > Please note, they are trying to sell product. Protecting your head is > obviously secondary. > > > > One more detail: Knowledge of head injuries has increased over the > > > decades. It's now widely believed that rotational accelerations (from > > > glancing blows) are much, much more damaging than linear impacts. But > > > the bike helmet standard does nothing to address those rotational > > > accelerations. And, as has been mentioned, there's some chance that > > > helmets actually make those worse. > > > > A bike helmet may reduce the torque on the head as the foam lining is > > more slippery than asphalt, and the straps, even when properly cinched, > > allow for a little movement. > > > > Krygowski's argument is unsubtantiated BS. > > :-) Interesting that you claim that - since I don't see you providing > any subsantiation for your BS! > > The phrase "foam lining is more slippery than asphalt" is meaningless. > The friction comparison must be made between asphalt and another > material, under the conditions of a glancing blow. No it is not meaningless. The coefficient of static friction tells you the maximum frictional force you can get given a normal force, and that maximum force (parallel to the skull) will be less for a given normal force when the coefficient of friction is lower. > > A bareheaded person is less likely to suffer a glancing blow to the > head, for the simple reason his head is smaller than a helmet. IOW, > there will be near misses with a bare head that would be glancing, > torquing impacts with a helmet. The thickness of a helmet is small compared to the thickness of size of the skull, and the helmet is not rigidly attached to the head (you can't cinch the straps tight enough for that). If there was any signficant tangential force on the helmet, you'd see injuries under the chin were the straps are. <rest of Krygowksi's strawman argument snipped out of boredom - this was beaten to death years ago in a previous incarnation of this "discussion" >. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 29 Sep 2006 13:21:37 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > That's not what you claimed. You claimed the standards were first set > to meet what the manufacturers could do, and in subsequent years they > continued to meet the standards by reducing the weight and comfort > of the helmets. In any case, Frank is incorrect. There are still helmets that meet the original standards (and are tested to them), without the hard plastic shell. I bought one earlier this year. The plastic covering of the helmet was never for impact, it was to hold the foam together. The current helmet design, of a thin layer of plastic, is optimal, because it lowers the sliding resistance (versus the helmets where the EPS was covered by only a cloth cover and the foam was held together with internal reinforcing). Most of the helmet manufacturers don't like testing to the Snell standard because so few consumers have any understanding of the different standards and testing methodologies.         Date: 29 Sep 2006 20:33:01 From: bill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > >> That's not what you claimed. You claimed the standards were first set >> to meet what the manufacturers could do, and in subsequent years they >> continued to meet the standards by reducing the weight and comfort >> of the helmets. > > In any case, Frank is incorrect. There are still helmets that meet the > original standards (and are tested to them), without the hard plastic > shell. I bought one earlier this year. The plastic covering of the > helmet was never for impact, it was to hold the foam together. The > current helmet design, of a thin layer of plastic, is optimal, because > it lowers the sliding resistance (versus the helmets where the EPS was > covered by only a cloth cover and the foam was held together with > internal reinforcing). > > Most of the helmet manufacturers don't like testing to the Snell > standard because so few consumers have any understanding of the > different standards and testing methodologies. Fuel for the fire. The military a few years back decided to design a helmet that would protect a soldier's head from even a large bore round of ammo. After designing the helmet and testing it on dummies they proudly announced they had a helmet that would protect a soldier's head no matter what hit it. As soon as some real world people got hold of the data, they agreed that the soldier's head would indeed be protected against a large bore round. There was only one problem with the design. The soldier's head would be ripped off his shoulders by the force of the shell hitting the helmet, thus protecting his head, but still killing him. Sanity finally prevailed and we now have the present helmet which protects and is light enough to add some electronics stuff to, like the night vision eyepiece, etc. Sometimes a helmet can be too good. Bill Baka   Date: 28 Sep 2006 19:19:11 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! gds wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > > That was back in the days of thick, rigid lexan shells, not fragile > > "microshells." And back when helmets had perhaps five vent holes, not > > 32. That was back when helmets were much thicker, and didn't look like > > styrofoam spiderwebs. Back before manufacturers put all their research > > and development into making helmets as light and flimsy as possible > > while JUST passing the ludicrously low certification standards. > > A question. What is the reason that certification standards are > "ludicrously low"? > > Supposidly the certifying agencies are not for profit orgs dedicated to > public health/safety. Why do they come up with standards that don't > work? If that is truly the case then I would put much more blame on > these agencies than on the manufacturers for meeting them. When bike helmets were very first brought to ket, I read an article about the first proposed Snell bike helmet standard. This was before it was even officially adopted. They based the standard on the following scenario: If a cyclist were standing still, and he toppled off his bike for some reason and hit his head, would the helmet keep his head's deceleration under 300 g's (i.e. 300 times the acceleration of gravity). At that time, the thinking was that 300 g's was about the limit beyond which serious brain injury occurred. There was immediate outcry from the "Safety!!!" community. They pointed out that almost all bike fatalities resulted from being hit by cars, and that the impacts were likely to be much higher. They wanted the helmets to be much more protective. Snell's response was that it was simply not feasible to make a more protective helmet. A helmet that would protect against a stationary six-foot drop (roughly) was as thick and heavy as a person could likely stand, while pedaling a bike. So, with detail changes, that's the impact standard we have. (There are other standards that have been used, some slightly stronger, some slightly less, but the only currently "legal" one in America - CPSC's - is based on that.) And practically speaking, older helmets were stronger, even though the standard hasn't shifted. In 1980, to be sure of passing the standard, manufacturers used thick shells, few vents and lots of foam, to clear the standard by a substantial gin. Manufacturers of cheap helmets still do that to a degree. It saves money on development & design. But manufacturers of expensive helmets have done wonderful things with computerized stress analysis, impact simulation, etc. They've cut the weight of their helmets in half - while still skimming just above the impact criterion. Note that. JUST above the standard. (Check one of the issues of Consumer Reports that actually measures impact protection. They won't tell you the numbers - CR is very pro-helmet, and they probably don't want you to know the actual numbers - but their color-coded dots make it clear that the cheap helmets are more protective.) One more detail: Knowledge of head injuries has increased over the decades. It's now widely believed that rotational accelerations (from glancing blows) are much, much more damaging than linear impacts. But the bike helmet standard does nothing to address those rotational accelerations. And, as has been mentioned, there's some chance that helmets actually make those worse. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 29 Sep 2006 06:25:16 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > gds wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > But manufacturers of expensive helmets have done wonderful things with > computerized stress analysis, impact simulation, etc. They've cut the > weight of their helmets in half - while still skimming just above the > impact criterion. I.e., they kept the helmets as strong as before but cut the weight in half (and presumably improving the ventilation as well), making the helmets far more comfortable for people to wear. > One more detail: Knowledge of head injuries has increased over the > decades. It's now widely believed that rotational accelerations (from > glancing blows) are much, much more damaging than linear impacts. But > the bike helmet standard does nothing to address those rotational > accelerations. And, as has been mentioned, there's some chance that > helmets actually make those worse. A bike helmet may reduce the torque on the head as the foam lining is more slippery than asphalt, and the straps, even when properly cinched, allow for a little movement. Krygowski's argument is unsubtantiated BS. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 28 Sep 2006 14:05:48 From: gds Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > > SMS wrote: > > >> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > >> > > >>> And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if > > >>> were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented > > >>> head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma > > >>> elsewhere. > > >> > > >> Cite? > > > > > ?"Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland", Sage MD. 1985. NZ > > > Med J: 25 > > > Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793 > > > > > > "Injuries of fatal severity to multiple organ systems were seen in > > > sixteen of twenty riders, including six with no significant head > > > injury. Only four riders died of fatal injury to head alone and one of > > > these was the only rider know to be wearing a safety helmet. His death > > > resulted from a fall from a bicycle at moderate speed rather than > > > collision with a motor vehicle." > > > > > > And note, of ther three unhelmeted fatalities who died _only_ of head > > > injury, we really don't know if they would have been saved by a > > > helmet. The one similar guy in a helmet was not saved by his. > > > > Boy that sucks...TWENTY-ONE-PLUS YEARS AGO! ROTFL > > Right, Bill. That was back when bike helmets were, on average, much > more protective than they are now. > > That was back in the days of thick, rigid lexan shells, not fragile > "microshells." And back when helmets had perhaps five vent holes, not > 32. That was back when helmets were much thicker, and didn't look like > styrofoam spiderwebs. Back before manufacturers put all their research > and development into making helmets as light and flimsy as possible > while JUST passing the ludicrously low certification standards. > > > Bill "wonder how long ago the actual /incidents/ were, BTW" S. > > And, as usual, your thirst for knowledge is limited to a ten second > "wonder." It's never strong enough for you to actually try to learn > anything, is it? > > - Frank Krygowski A question. What is the reason that certification standards are "ludicrously low"? Supposidly the certifying agencies are not for profit orgs dedicated to public health/safety. Why do they come up with standards that don't work? If that is truly the case then I would put much more blame on these agencies than on the manufacturers for meeting them.   Date: 28 Sep 2006 08:25:13 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Sornson wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > SMS wrote: > >> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> > >>> And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if > >>> were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented > >>> head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma > >>> elsewhere. > >> > >> Cite? > > > ?"Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland", Sage MD. 1985. NZ > > Med J: 25 > > Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793 > > > > "Injuries of fatal severity to multiple organ systems were seen in > > sixteen of twenty riders, including six with no significant head > > injury. Only four riders died of fatal injury to head alone and one of > > these was the only rider know to be wearing a safety helmet. His death > > resulted from a fall from a bicycle at moderate speed rather than > > collision with a motor vehicle." > > > > And note, of ther three unhelmeted fatalities who died _only_ of head > > injury, we really don't know if they would have been saved by a > > helmet. The one similar guy in a helmet was not saved by his. > > Boy that sucks...TWENTY-ONE-PLUS YEARS AGO! ROTFL Right, Bill. That was back when bike helmets were, on average, much more protective than they are now. That was back in the days of thick, rigid lexan shells, not fragile "microshells." And back when helmets had perhaps five vent holes, not 32. That was back when helmets were much thicker, and didn't look like styrofoam spiderwebs. Back before manufacturers put all their research and development into making helmets as light and flimsy as possible while JUST passing the ludicrously low certification standards. > Bill "wonder how long ago the actual /incidents/ were, BTW" S. And, as usual, your thirst for knowledge is limited to a ten second "wonder." It's never strong enough for you to actually try to learn anything, is it? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 28 Sep 2006 16:27:48 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>> SMS wrote: >>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even >>>>> if were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and >>>>> prevented head injury, the cyclist would still have died from >>>>> massive trauma elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Cite? >> >>> ?"Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland", Sage MD. 1985. NZ >>> Med J: 25 >>> Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793 >>> >>> "Injuries of fatal severity to multiple organ systems were seen in >>> sixteen of twenty riders, including six with no significant head >>> injury. Only four riders died of fatal injury to head alone and one >>> of these was the only rider know to be wearing a safety helmet. His >>> death resulted from a fall from a bicycle at moderate speed rather >>> than collision with a motor vehicle." >>> >>> And note, of ther three unhelmeted fatalities who died _only_ of >>> head injury, we really don't know if they would have been saved by a >>> helmet. The one similar guy in a helmet was not saved by his. >> >> Boy that sucks...TWENTY-ONE-PLUS YEARS AGO! ROTFL > > Right, Bill. That was back when bike helmets were, on average, much > more protective than they are now. Why did you delete the little issue that your CITATION had absolutely NOTHING to do with flailor's claim? Typical dishonest AHZ behavior, Frank. (Hell, just for fun I'm going to put it back so the reader can judge.) Flailor wrote: "And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma elsewhere." Someone asked, "Cite?" and you produced the above -- which in no way bears on the flailor's fallacious contention. So I pointed that out with (this is the part you DELETED {without noting, BTW} so I'll have to go get it): "(Not to mention, of course, it doesn't even meet flailor's specious criteria anyway; see his claim above.)" "Frank Krygowski: Profiles in Sneaky Irrelevance." LOL   Date: 27 Sep 2006 20:23:02 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Ted Rosenberg wrote: > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: > > Ted Rosenberg wrote: > > > >>Well, I can't say about most of the other things, but I, and my wife, > >>survived being hit head on by a truck because of air bags. I became a > >>MAJOR convert to air bags in cars after that. They cut us out of the > >>remnants of the car, and we walked away (well limped away) with only > >>very minor injuries. > > > > > > And you later were involved in a crash that was in ALL ways identical, > > except for the ABSENCE of air bags, in which you died? > > > I never claimed that my statement was anything other than a personal > anecdote. Mr. Rosenberg seems to use the English language differently than convention. Writing "but I, and my wife, survived being hit head on by a truck because of air bags" is clearly STATING CONCLUSION AS FACT, not merely a hypothesis. > I believe that they saved our lives, but I would NEVER argue that the > anecdote constitutes PROOF. See above. > We could do a test. Put you into a car like the one I was driving, but > without passive restraints, and have a truck swerve across the line and > hit you head on. The results there would give us one data point. If > you survived, we could do it a number of times, and tabulate the results > > In this case however, I believe that crash dummy tests exist, and NO, I > am not going to do your research for you. I am not trying to argue with > you, I merely stated MY opinion. See above. > As far as I am concerned, you can believe that passive restraints should only be used > in S&M sessions. While bondage and S&M have overlapping features, they are not synonymous. -- Tom Sherman - Here, not there.   Date: 27 Sep 2006 19:41:37 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > > He also gives himself away by his attempts to cast doubt on helmet > effectiveness by labeling it a "foam hat." That scoundrel! How can he say that, when we know that helmets are really - um, hats made out of styrofoam? > In fact, the EPS used in > helmets is one of the best impact absorbing materials available. There > is a good article about this at > "http://www.grantadesign.com/resources/materials/casestudies/helmet.htm". > There are no magic powers, it's material science and dynamics. Granta's software is interesting stuff, and useful. But the fact that styrofoam (or expanded polystyrene) is "one of the best" materials does NOT prove that existing bike helmets are effective. The level of protection of the current styrofoam spiderweb hats is low enough to justify doubts. By the way, did you notice that even Granta's site attempts to make bicycling sound horribly risky? " Even in a small country such as England, cycling fatalities exceed 200 per year." Actually, the 2004 figure was 134. And the figure for pedestrians was 671 - but it's not fashionable to mention that! (Data from Department of Transport, _Road Casualties Great Britain: 2004 Report) > And of course you're correct, doctors are very good at diagnosing the > cause of death. The typical helmet promotion quote is that xx% of bike fatalities "involve" head injuries. The doctor doesn't have to give it as the cause of death. As long as a head injury (simple scalp abrasion?) is noted in the report, it can be said to "involve" a head injury. If you read the propaganda critically, these half-truths begin to emerge. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 27 Sep 2006 19:04:19 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > > And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if > > were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented > > head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma > > elsewhere. > > Cite? =EF=BB=BF"Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland", Sage MD. 1985. NZ Med J: 25 Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793 "Injuries of fatal severity to multiple organ systems were seen in sixteen of twenty riders, including six with no significant head injury. Only four riders died of fatal injury to head alone and one of these was the only rider know to be wearing a safety helmet. His death resulted from a fall from a bicycle at moderate speed rather than collision with a motor vehicle." And note, of ther three unhelmeted fatalities who died _only_ of head injury, we really don't know if they would have been saved by a helmet. The one similar guy in a helmet was not saved by his. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 28 Sep 2006 03:45:37 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > SMS wrote: >> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >>> And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if >>> were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented >>> head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma >>> elsewhere. >> >> Cite? > ?"Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland", Sage MD. 1985. NZ > Med J: 25 > Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793 > > "Injuries of fatal severity to multiple organ systems were seen in > sixteen of twenty riders, including six with no significant head > injury. Only four riders died of fatal injury to head alone and one of > these was the only rider know to be wearing a safety helmet. His death > resulted from a fall from a bicycle at moderate speed rather than > collision with a motor vehicle." > > And note, of ther three unhelmeted fatalities who died _only_ of head > injury, we really don't know if they would have been saved by a > helmet. The one similar guy in a helmet was not saved by his. Boy that sucks...TWENTY-ONE-PLUS YEARS AGO! ROTFL (Not to mention, of course, it doesn't even meet flailor's specious criteria anyway; see his claim above.) Bill "wonder how long ago the actual /incidents/ were, BTW" S.   Date: 27 Sep 2006 12:28:33 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote, regarding ER doctors: > Every accident > where a cyclist is seriously injured or killed due to the lack of a > helmet is more evidence, in their value system, that helmets should be > required. I'd rephrase that. The phrase "injured or killed due to lack of a helmet" presupposes that the presence of a helmet would definitely have prevented the injury or death. For many minor injuries, this may be true; for example, a helmet might obviously have prevented a particular scrape to the top of the scalp. But for many others, there is no certainty that a helmet would help. Would a helmet prevent the death of a cyclist who (unlike most fatalities) received no other fatal injury but a head injury? This would be true ONLY if that fatal impact were in the narrow range where such a flimsy device could make a difference. Per-cyclist fatalities have not fallen when helmet use has greatly increased. This is an indication that, for most head injury deaths, flimsy bike helmets can only reduce an EXTREMELY fatal injury to a VERY fatal injury. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 27 Sep 2006 05:44:20 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m31wq1bzd1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> > >> > Odd that the original message cannot be fetched! >> >> Odd, indeed! Especially since I did nothing to render it >> unfetchable. I just saved this subthread (and in fact, >> the whole thread) in my leafnode. No changes to >> X-Archive or follow-ups on my part. > > Did you somehow modify the message ID or did your newsreader delete > it? No. > - that's what's used to fetch the original. Thanx for the edcucation :-/ >> > >> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word >> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, >> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. >> >> hmmmmmm ... okay. >> I can take that for where it comes from. > >> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I >> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, >> and the people who endorse it. > > Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet use > when they aren't If you're representative of all other helmet zealots (pro or anti,) you're a bloody waffler. So, therefore, are the lot of yez. > (and when you refuse to admit that a google search > will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet > use), that generally would be considered lying. Screw Google! Google is not the be-all/end-all of UseNet. >> Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not) >> while you're out, driving your car. > > Thus proving yourself to be a moron, and a dishonest one at > that. So now I'm a Nazi/liar/moron? Now I don't know whether to shit, or go blind. Again - just please try not to hurt or kill anybody while you're out driving your stoopid car. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca     Date: 27 Sep 2006 15:12:27 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > > > >> > More lies from the anti-helmet nazis: I never posted one word > >> > on any of these newgroups encouraging people to use helmets, > >> > but do object to idiotic claims that helmets are useless. > >> > >> hmmmmmm ... okay. > >> I can take that for where it comes from. > > > >> And thank you for calling me a nazi and a liar because I > >> take issue with promoted yet friable safety equipment, > >> and the people who endorse it. > > > > Well, if you go around suggesting that people are promoting helmet > > use when they aren't > > If you're representative of all other helmet zealots (pro or anti,) > you're a bloody waffler. So, therefore, are the lot of yez. The idea that helmets might do some good, but that decisions as to whether to use them should be left to the individual, is too much for you to accept (and is not at all the opinion that "zealots" hold as zealots typically can't deal with personal choice). > > (and when you refuse to admit that a google search > > will turn up zero posts for any alleged attempt to promote helmet > > use), that generally would be considered lying. > > Screw Google! Google is not the be-all/end-all of UseNet. I.e., you know there were no such posts and can't bring yourself to admit it. Like many of the anti-helmet people, you need an "enemy" to blame, and if you can't find a real one, I guess you have to manufacture one. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB     Date: 27 Sep 2006 13:00:57 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:44:20 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> Thus proving yourself to be a moron, and a dishonest one at >> that. > >So now I'm a Nazi/liar/moron? Now I don't know whether >to shit, or go blind. > Insults are a sign that the person using them has no other support.       Date: 27 Sep 2006 15:14:19 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:44:20 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > > >In article <m364fdrsxc.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > > >> Thus proving yourself to be a moron, and a dishonest one at > >> that. > > > >So now I'm a Nazi/liar/moron? Now I don't know whether > >to shit, or go blind. > > > > Insults are a sign that the person using them has no other support. When you guys go around making false statements about what people have said, you are lying, and pointing that out is not an "insult". -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 26 Sep 2006 19:42:55 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Ted Rosenberg wrote: > > Well, I can't say about most of the other things, but I, and my wife, > survived being hit head on by a truck because of air bags. I became a > MAJOR convert to air bags in cars after that. They cut us out of the > remnants of the car, and we walked away (well limped away) with only > very minor injuries. And you later were involved in a crash that was in ALL ways identical, except for the ABSENCE of air bags, in which you died? -- Tom Sherman - Here, not there.     Date: 27 Sep 2006 11:20:37 From: Ted Rosenberg Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: > Ted Rosenberg wrote: > >>Well, I can't say about most of the other things, but I, and my wife, >>survived being hit head on by a truck because of air bags. I became a >>MAJOR convert to air bags in cars after that. They cut us out of the >>remnants of the car, and we walked away (well limped away) with only >>very minor injuries. > > > And you later were involved in a crash that was in ALL ways identical, > except for the ABSENCE of air bags, in which you died? > I never claimed that my statement was anything other than a personal anecdote. I believe that they saved our lives, but I would NEVER argue that the anecdote constitutes PROOF. We could do a test. Put you into a car like the one I was driving, but without passive restraints, and have a truck swerve across the line and hit you head on. The results there would give us one data point. If you survived, we could do it a number of times, and tabulate the results In this case however, I believe that crash dummy tests exist, and NO, I am not going to do your research for you. I am not trying to argue with you, I merely stated MY opinion. As far as I am concerned, you can believe that passive restraints should only be used in S&M sessions.   Date: 26 Sep 2006 19:38:21 From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > northcountry wrote: > > Look at the wording of the statement. > > Using the same logic, if 100% of all riders in the city wore helmets, > > we could honestly say that "100% of bike fatalities in the City involve > > riders wearing helmets." > > The problem with the 97% number is that it doesn't take into account > other factors. A non-helmet wearer is also likely to be a less > experienced cyclist, less educated, and less affluent person. They are > more likely to ignore stop signs, red lights. It's similar to the whole > automotive safety debate. The drivers that own the cars with air bags, > traction control, electronic stability control, ABS, etc, are more > affluent and well-educated, and have more to lose by driving in a > dangerous manner. The fact that their vehicle has these safety features > is coincident to the fact that they are less likely to be involved in an > accident. That explains the large number of drivers of luxury SUVs and imported luxury cars that think 5 feet is a safe following distance at freeway speeds! > The medical professionals that are usually the helmet law promoters are > always looking at the statistics from emergency rooms, and got in the > habit of helmet promotion back in the days of the motorcycle helmet > debate. Now they have the same ER statistics to back them up in the > bicycle helmet debate. They really aren't interested in the personal > freedom aspect of the debate, or in evaluating the effectiveness of > helmets based on the entire population of cyclists, most of whom will > not show up in the emergency room as the result of a bicycle accident. Citation? -- Tom Sherman - Here, not there.     Date: 27 Sep 2006 09:16:22 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: >> The medical professionals that are usually the helmet law promoters are >> always looking at the statistics from emergency rooms, and got in the >> habit of helmet promotion back in the days of the motorcycle helmet >> debate. Now they have the same ER statistics to back them up in the >> bicycle helmet debate. They really aren't interested in the personal >> freedom aspect of the debate, or in evaluating the effectiveness of >> helmets based on the entire population of cyclists, most of whom will >> not show up in the emergency room as the result of a bicycle accident. > > Citation? Here's two that show that the ER doctors are big on promoting helmet use: "http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis" "http://www.acep.org/webportal/PatientsConsumers/HealthSubjectsByTopic/BicycleSafety/summerbikesafety.htm" The lack of any qualifying statement regarding the actual low risk of being involved in an accident where a helmet would make a difference is never included because it would dilute their message. Every accident where a cyclist is seriously injured or killed due to the lack of a helmet is more evidence, in their value system, that helmets should be required.       Date: 27 Sep 2006 16:33:47 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:16:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote: >Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote: > >>> The medical professionals that are usually the helmet law promoters are >>> always looking at the statistics from emergency rooms, and got in the >>> habit of helmet promotion back in the days of the motorcycle helmet >>> debate. Now they have the same ER statistics to back them up in the >>> bicycle helmet debate. They really aren't interested in the personal >>> freedom aspect of the debate, or in evaluating the effectiveness of >>> helmets based on the entire population of cyclists, most of whom will >>> not show up in the emergency room as the result of a bicycle accident. >> >> Citation? > >Here's two that show that the ER doctors are big on promoting helmet use: > >"http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis" >"http://www.acep.org/webportal/PatientsConsumers/HealthSubjectsByTopic/BicycleSafety/summerbikesafety.htm" > >The lack of any qualifying statement regarding the actual low risk of >being involved in an accident where a helmet would make a difference is >never included because it would dilute their message. Every accident >where a cyclist is seriously injured or killed due to the lack of a >helmet is more evidence, in their value system, that helmets should be >required. And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma elsewhere.         Date: 27 Sep 2006 23:47:09 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:16:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> > wrote: > > And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if > were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented > head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma > elsewhere. Hnti-helmet-zealot conspiracy theory. Doctors can generally be trusted to diagnose the cause of death correctly. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB           Date: 28 Sep 2006 02:02:12 From: bill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:16:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >> wrote: >> >> And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if >> were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented >> head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma >> elsewhere. > > Hnti-helmet-zealot conspiracy theory. Doctors can generally be > trusted to diagnose the cause of death correctly. > I stated it properly last week. If the guys head is cut off but not injured due to a helmet, he is still dead. If a guy comes into the E.R. dead and all messed up with no helmet they might just put down cause of death as no helmet, which, of course makes it into the stats. Bill Baka             Date: 27 Sep 2006 23:56:24 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! bill wrote: > I stated it properly last week. If the guys head is cut off but not > injured due to a helmet, he is still dead. If a guy comes into the E.R. > dead and all messed up with no helmet they might just put down cause of > death as no helmet, which, of course makes it into the stats. > Bill Baka I'd wager that no doctor ever recorded "no helmet" as the cause of death. They can tell pretty well when a helmet would have made the difference between life and death, and this is why so many ER physicians end up becoming helmet advocates.               Date: 28 Sep 2006 08:55:36 From: bill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > bill wrote: > >> I stated it properly last week. If the guys head is cut off but not >> injured due to a helmet, he is still dead. If a guy comes into the >> E.R. dead and all messed up with no helmet they might just put down >> cause of death as no helmet, which, of course makes it into the stats. >> Bill Baka > > I'd wager that no doctor ever recorded "no helmet" as the cause of > death. They can tell pretty well when a helmet would have made the > difference between life and death, and this is why so many ER physicians > end up becoming helmet advocates. I was only pushing toward a point of view, not a statistic. I wrecked a motorcycle at 85 MPH with no helmet an lived to tell about it. Not even a broken bone but such severe (and painful) road rash that I was out of work for 2 weeks. Bicycle helmets are pretty much useless unless you hit the top of your head and then you can do a Christopher Reeve and break your neck. Motorcycle helmets with mouth protection are good but would be no fun to wear on a hot bike ride. It should be an individual choice, not a law. You are putting your whole body out there on a bike, not just your head. Bill Baka                 Date: 28 Sep 2006 14:50:03 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! bill <bbaka@syix.com > writes: > SMS wrote: > > bill wrote: > > > >> I stated it properly last week. If the guys head is cut off but not > >> injured due to a helmet, he is still dead. If a guy comes into the > >> E.R. dead and all messed up with no helmet they might just put down > >> cause of death as no helmet, which, of course makes it into the > >> stats. > >> Bill Baka > > I'd wager that no doctor ever recorded "no helmet" as the cause of > > death. They can tell pretty well when a helmet would have made the > > difference between life and death, and this is why so many ER > > physicians end up becoming helmet advocates. > > I was only pushing toward a point of view, not a statistic. I wrecked > a motorcycle at 85 MPH with no helmet an lived to tell about it. That's nice, but I can top that story. Three guys climbing in Peru were once traversing along a corniced ridge, spacing themselves a full rope length apart (150 foot ropes) in case part of the cornice broke. Some 300 feet of cornice broke all at once with all them on the top of it. Somehow the mass held together well enough for them to stay on top and not get burried, and they ended up getting a 3000 foot vertical ride down the mountain. They were deposited not too far from their base camp, dusted themselves off, and decided that the "mountain gods" wanted them to go home. They went home. Sometimes people are lucky (i.e., random events happened to be in their favor). If you count on that saving your ass, you are a fool. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                   Date: 29 Sep 2006 19:54:13 From: bill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: > >> SMS wrote: >>> bill wrote: >>> >>>> I stated it properly last week. If the guys head is cut off but not >>>> injured due to a helmet, he is still dead. If a guy comes into the >>>> E.R. dead and all messed up with no helmet they might just put down >>>> cause of death as no helmet, which, of course makes it into the >>>> stats. >>>> Bill Baka >>> I'd wager that no doctor ever recorded "no helmet" as the cause of >>> death. They can tell pretty well when a helmet would have made the >>> difference between life and death, and this is why so many ER >>> physicians end up becoming helmet advocates. >> I was only pushing toward a point of view, not a statistic. I wrecked >> a motorcycle at 85 MPH with no helmet an lived to tell about it. > > That's nice, but I can top that story. Three guys climbing in Peru > were once traversing along a corniced ridge, spacing themselves a full > rope length apart (150 foot ropes) in case part of the cornice broke. > Some 300 feet of cornice broke all at once with all them on the top of > it. Somehow the mass held together well enough for them to stay on > top and not get burried, and they ended up getting a 3000 foot vertical > ride down the mountain. They were deposited not too far from their > base camp, dusted themselves off, and decided that the "mountain gods" > wanted them to go home. They went home. After a message from the Mountain Gods like that I would go home too. > > Sometimes people are lucky (i.e., random events happened to be in > their favor). If you count on that saving your ass, you are a fool. > Insanely lucky is what I would call you. All 3 of you should by rights be a statistic. Bill Baka                     Date: 29 Sep 2006 23:15:45 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! bill <bbaka@syix.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: > > > >> SMS wrote: > >> I was only pushing toward a point of view, not a statistic. I wrecked > >> a motorcycle at 85 MPH with no helmet an lived to tell about it. > > That's nice, but I can top that story. Three guys climbing in Peru > > were once traversing along a corniced ridge, spacing themselves a full > > rope length apart (150 foot ropes) in case part of the cornice broke. > > Some 300 feet of cornice broke all at once with all them on the top of > > it. Somehow the mass held together well enough for them to stay on > > top and not get burried, and they ended up getting a 3000 foot vertical > > ride down the mountain. They were deposited not too far from their > > base camp, dusted themselves off, and decided that the "mountain gods" > > wanted them to go home. They went home. > > After a message from the Mountain Gods like that I would go home too. > > Sometimes people are lucky (i.e., random events happened to be in > > their favor). If you count on that saving your ass, you are a fool. > Insanely lucky is what I would call you. All 3 of you should by rights > be a statistic. Alas, it wasn't me - I only heard about it. The story was so outrageous that it spread around the climbing community like wildfire! I've merely had refrigerator-size blocks fall down around me, missing me and everyone else in the party, except for a small fragment that knocked the wind out of my belayer, but caused no injuries beyond a few bruises. I was in the middle of a 5.9 section, below a harder section, at the time, standing on two small downwards slopping footholds. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                       Date: 29 Sep 2006 23:26:33 From: bill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >>> bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: >>> >>>> SMS wrote: >>>> I was only pushing toward a point of view, not a statistic. I wrecked >>>> a motorcycle at 85 MPH with no helmet an lived to tell about it. > >>> That's nice, but I can top that story. Three guys climbing in Peru >>> were once traversing along a corniced ridge, spacing themselves a full >>> rope length apart (150 foot ropes) in case part of the cornice broke. >>> Some 300 feet of cornice broke all at once with all them on the top of >>> it. Somehow the mass held together well enough for them to stay on >>> top and not get burried, and they ended up getting a 3000 foot vertical >>> ride down the mountain. They were deposited not too far from their >>> base camp, dusted themselves off, and decided that the "mountain gods" >>> wanted them to go home. They went home. >> After a message from the Mountain Gods like that I would go home too. >>> Sometimes people are lucky (i.e., random events happened to be in >>> their favor). If you count on that saving your ass, you are a fool. > >> Insanely lucky is what I would call you. All 3 of you should by rights >> be a statistic. > > Alas, it wasn't me - I only heard about it. The story was so outrageous > that it spread around the climbing community like wildfire! I've merely > had refrigerator-size blocks fall down around me, missing me and everyone > else in the party, except for a small fragment that knocked the wind out > of my belayer, but caused no injuries beyond a few bruises. I was in the > middle of a 5.9 section, below a harder section, at the time, standing on > two small downwards slopping footholds. > Still, to be on topic here, a helmet would not have mattered for diddly. I like rock and cliff climbing but when I am 50 feet up a vertical and look down I start to have second thoughts. The only things that are vertical that I climb these days could get me arrested. I climb the high voltage cross country transmission towers that run about 100 feet high to get some camera shots. Illegal as hell, but an interesting feeling with a million volts crackling on either side of you. I am definitely old enough to know better, but sometimes I just can't resist. Bill Baka                         Date: 29 Sep 2006 23:57:09 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! bill <bbaka@syix.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: > > > >> Insanely lucky is what I would call you. All 3 of you should by rights > >> be a statistic. > > Alas, it wasn't me - I only heard about it. The story was so > > outrageous that it spread around the climbing community like > > wildfire! I've merely had refrigerator-size blocks fall down > > around me, missing me and everyone else in the party, except for a > > small fragment that knocked the wind out of my belayer, but caused > > no injuries beyond a few bruises. I was in the middle of a 5.9 > > section, below a harder section, at the time, standing on two > > small downwards slopping footholds. > > > Still, to be on topic here, a helmet would not have mattered for diddly. Actually, a helmet can help in this situation: while the refrigerator-sized blocks are life threatening, they are typically accompanied by lots of smaller stuff. Those smaller rocks can knock you out or stun you. Losing consciousness on a technical rock climb is definitely going to result in a fall (or if your belayer is knocked out, you will suddenly find yourself soloing). In the case I described, it was early spring. There must have been some running water that lubricated a talus field above the climb (and out of sight), causing the large rocks to slide, plus some number of smaller ones). You did illustrate, however, the sort of specious reasoning used by anti-helmet zealots - not considering the actual risk factors and trying to draw conclusions from a sometimes-faulty analysis of a contrived scenario. > I like rock and cliff climbing but when I am 50 feet up a vertical and > look down I start to have second thoughts. I've climbed faces 3000 feet high, some of it past vertical. 50 feet is under 1/3 of a rope length. And we don't have second thoughts merely for looking down - you *have* to look down to see where you are placing your feet. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                           Date: 30 Sep 2006 01:59:39 From: bill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >>> bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: >>> >>>> Insanely lucky is what I would call you. All 3 of you should by rights >>>> be a statistic. > >>> Alas, it wasn't me - I only heard about it. The story was so >>> outrageous that it spread around the climbing community like >>> wildfire! I've merely had refrigerator-size blocks fall down >>> around me, missing me and everyone else in the party, except for a >>> small fragment that knocked the wind out of my belayer, but caused >>> no injuries beyond a few bruises. I was in the middle of a 5.9 >>> section, below a harder section, at the time, standing on two >>> small downwards slopping footholds. >>> >> Still, to be on topic here, a helmet would not have mattered for diddly. > > Actually, a helmet can help in this situation: while the > refrigerator-sized blocks are life threatening, they are typically > accompanied by lots of smaller stuff. Those smaller rocks can knock > you out or stun you. Losing consciousness on a technical rock climb > is definitely going to result in a fall (or if your belayer is knocked > out, you will suddenly find yourself soloing). I admit there is a lot of difference between being rendered unconscious and being rendered flat. > > In the case I described, it was early spring. There must have been some > running water that lubricated a talus field above the climb (and out of > sight), causing the large rocks to slide, plus some number of smaller > ones). > > You did illustrate, however, the sort of specious reasoning used by > anti-helmet zealots - not considering the actual risk factors and > trying to draw conclusions from a sometimes-faulty analysis of a > contrived scenario. I am not for nor against helmets. In some cases they are called for and in some not called for. I spelunk too, and may or may not wear an industrial 'bump' cap (plastic hard hat), depending on whether I just happen to discover a new cave and want to check it out. If it looks good I come back with cap, rope, lights, etc., as needed. For casual bicycling I don't think they are any more needed than for jogging or running in the country. In town with cars it is a different story. > > >> I like rock and cliff climbing but when I am 50 feet up a vertical and >> look down I start to have second thoughts. > > I've climbed faces 3000 feet high, some of it past vertical. 50 feet > is under 1/3 of a rope length. And we don't have second thoughts > merely for looking down - you *have* to look down to see where you > are placing your feet. > > Agreed, but my climbs tend to be random and without rope or partners. When I am driving with my wife I might see an interesting formation and just go climb it, but I don't like to go over 50 feet without the safety gear, which is not always in the car, or bike for all that matter. Bill Baka                             Date: 30 Sep 2006 06:29:30 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! bill <bbaka@syix.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: > > > >> Bill Z. wrote: > >>> bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> Insanely lucky is what I would call you. All 3 of you should by rights > >>>> be a statistic. > > > >>> Alas, it wasn't me - I only heard about it. The story was so > >>> outrageous that it spread around the climbing community like > >>> wildfire! I've merely had refrigerator-size blocks fall down > >>> around me, missing me and everyone else in the party, except for a > >>> small fragment that knocked the wind out of my belayer, but caused > >>> no injuries beyond a few bruises. I was in the middle of a 5.9 > >>> section, below a harder section, at the time, standing on two > >>> small downwards slopping footholds. > >>> > >> Still, to be on topic here, a helmet would not have mattered for diddly. > > Actually, a helmet can help in this situation: while the > > refrigerator-sized blocks are life threatening, they are typically > > accompanied by lots of smaller stuff. Those smaller rocks can knock > > you out or stun you. Losing consciousness on a technical rock climb > > is definitely going to result in a fall (or if your belayer is knocked > > out, you will suddenly find yourself soloing). > > I admit there is a lot of difference between being rendered > unconscious and being rendered flat. Yes, and you might consider that being rendered unconscious can sometimes result in a fall in which you would be rendered flat as you crater onto the deck. > I am not for nor against helmets. In some cases they are called for > and in some not called for. Climbers tend to make individual, personal decisions on helmet use, usually considering conditions (for example, potential rock fall, whether you might pendulum into a corner if you fell, or whether a party is above you that could knock off something). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                               Date: 30 Sep 2006 07:25:28 From: bill Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: > >> Bill Z. wrote: >>> bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: >>> >>>> Bill Z. wrote: >>>>> bill <bbaka@syix.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Insanely lucky is what I would call you. All 3 of you should by rights >>>>>> be a statistic. >>>>> Alas, it wasn't me - I only heard about it. The story was so >>>>> outrageous that it spread around the climbing community like >>>>> wildfire! I've merely had refrigerator-size blocks fall down >>>>> around me, missing me and everyone else in the party, except for a >>>>> small fragment that knocked the wind out of my belayer, but caused >>>>> no injuries beyond a few bruises. I was in the middle of a 5.9 >>>>> section, below a harder section, at the time, standing on two >>>>> small downwards slopping footholds. >>>>> >>>> Still, to be on topic here, a helmet would not have mattered for diddly. >>> Actually, a helmet can help in this situation: while the >>> refrigerator-sized blocks are life threatening, they are typically >>> accompanied by lots of smaller stuff. Those smaller rocks can knock >>> you out or stun you. Losing consciousness on a technical rock climb >>> is definitely going to result in a fall (or if your belayer is knocked >>> out, you will suddenly find yourself soloing). >> I admit there is a lot of difference between being rendered >> unconscious and being rendered flat. > > Yes, and you might consider that being rendered unconscious can > sometimes result in a fall in which you would be rendered flat as > you crater onto the deck. I can't argue with that. > >> I am not for nor against helmets. In some cases they are called for >> and in some not called for. > > Climbers tend to make individual, personal decisions on helmet use, > usually considering conditions (for example, potential rock fall, > whether you might pendulum into a corner if you fell, or whether a > party is above you that could knock off something). > > Agreed here too, but I am usually a lone climber and spelunker. My wife won't climb with me and she will only go so far into a cave. I'm still breaking her in to my way of the out doors. Bill Baka           Date: 27 Sep 2006 18:35:45 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! Bill Z. wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:16:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >> wrote: >> >> And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if >> were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented >> head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma >> elsewhere. > > Hnti-helmet-zealot conspiracy theory. Doctors can generally be > trusted to diagnose the cause of death correctly. He also gives himself away by his attempts to cast doubt on helmet effectiveness by labeling it a "foam hat." In fact, the EPS used in helmets is one of the best impact absorbing materials available. There is a good article about this at "http://www.grantadesign.com/resources/materials/casestudies/helmet.htm". There are no magic powers, it's material science and dynamics. And of course you're correct, doctors are very good at diagnosing the cause of death. The real question is whether or not a helmet would have lessened the head injuries to a sufficient degree.             Date: 28 Sep 2006 02:10:00 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > writes: > Bill Z. wrote: > > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:16:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if > >> were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented > >> head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma > >> elsewhere. > > Hnti-helmet-zealot conspiracy theory. Doctors can generally be > > trusted to diagnose the cause of death correctly. > > He also gives himself away by his attempts to cast doubt on helmet > effectiveness by labeling it a "foam hat." In fact, the EPS used in > helmets is one of the best impact absorbing materials available. There > is a good article about this at > "http://www.grantadesign.com/resources/materials/casestudies/helmet.htm". > There are no magic powers, it's material science and dynamics. And previous Krygowski tried some similar rhetoric regarding the styrofoam used as packing material for computers - it is not the same substance as the material used in helmets, and when packing computers for shipping, it really doesn't cost much to use a a couple of additional inches of styrofoam, particularly when that lets you get by with cheaper packing materials. These guys don't think. They just throw out strawmen. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB         Date: 27 Sep 2006 10:21:32 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > And frequently, they list head injuries as a cause of death even if > were somehow the foam hat to have exerted magic powers and prevented > head injury, the cyclist would still have died from massive trauma > elsewhere. Cite?   Date: 26 Sep 2006 14:46:27 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! gds wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:37:29 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > >What's sad is when people feel that it's not enough to merely decide for > > >themselves to not wear a helmet, and have a need to try to justify their > > >decision to others, as well as to encourage others to follow their example. > > > > Like passing laws requiring them to do so? > > What is your problem? The same refrain over and over about MHL's when > that is not either stated or implied. Multiple choice: a) jtaylor has a learning disability b) jtaylor is insane c) jtaylor is a Usenet troll d) all of the above > Almost everyone who is posting- regardless if they tend to find helmets > usefull or not- is saying it should be a matter of choice. So, why do > you continuously bring up the issue of MHL's? The number of folks > posting to this group who favor MHL's is very small. Yet you need to > reply this way to everyone who says they think a helmet may be usefull. > > How do you think it helps?   Date: 26 Sep 2006 12:40:02 From: gds Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:37:29 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> > wrote: > > > >What's sad is when people feel that it's not enough to merely decide for > >themselves to not wear a helmet, and have a need to try to justify their > >decision to others, as well as to encourage others to follow their example. > > Like passing laws requiring them to do so? What is your problem? The same refrain over and over about MHL's when that is not either stated or implied. Almost everyone who is posting- regardless if they tend to find helmets usefull or not- is saying it should be a matter of choice. So, why do you continuously bring up the issue of MHL's? The number of folks posting to this group who favor MHL's is very small. Yet you need to reply this way to everyone who says they think a helmet may be usefull. How do you think it helps?     Date: 26 Sep 2006 12:59:29 From: SMS Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! gds wrote: >>> What's sad is when people feel that it's not enough to merely decide for >>> themselves to not wear a helmet, and have a need to try to justify their >>> decision to others, as well as to encourage others to follow their example. >> Like passing laws requiring them to do so? > > What is your problem? The same refrain over and over about MHL's when > that is not either stated or implied. I've probably done more to fight MHLs and MHPs (mandatory helmet policies) than most people. The key is to fight them using facts and logic. Trying to fight a helmet law (or policy) by talking about walking helmets, the comparative risks of falling out of bed, or by contrasting the number of drownings to the number of bicycle crashes, is a recipe for more MHLs and MHPs. I helped stave off the MHP of my bicycle club, along with other leaders, by stating that if a MHP were adopted that we would stop leading rides (even though many of us required helmets on the rides that we lead). Alas, insurance, the all-purpose excuse of the 1980's, intruded on our attempts to stop an MHP. By the same token, I do get upset with the endless tirades of the do-gooder organizations that keep harping on helmet use being the most important thing when riding. They are inflating the risk of cycling beyond all reason. > Almost everyone who is posting- regardless if they tend to find helmets > usefull or not- is saying it should be a matter of choice. So, why do > you continuously bring up the issue of MHL's? The number of folks > posting to this group who favor MHL's is very small. I think that in all the helmet debates, there was only one person actually in favor of MHLs. The debate has never been about whether MHLs are a good idea or not, it's nearly unanimous that MHLs are not good public policy. Education and encouragement are better ways to get people to use helmets.       Date: 26 Sep 2006 21:49:14 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:59:29 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote: >I think that in all the helmet debates, there was only one person >actually in favor of MHLs. The debate has never been about whether MHLs >are a good idea or not, it's nearly unanimous that MHLs are not good >public policy. Education and encouragement are better ways to get people >to use helmets. But getting people to use helmets is not a good idea.         Date: 26 Sep 2006 22:13:38 From: Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:h28jh29j2r9hr2kqr83cmcrgc7un6sesut@4ax.com... > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:59:29 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> > wrote: > > >>I think that in all the helmet debates, there was only one person >>actually in favor of MHLs. The debate has never been about whether MHLs >>are a good idea or not, it's nearly unanimous that MHLs are not good >>public policy. Education and encouragement are better ways to get people >>to use helmets. > > But getting people to use helmets is not a good idea. Then run for Poo-Bah and ban helmets.   Date: 26 Sep 2006 10:37:55 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! SMS wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > > > It's the population studies about which the ER doctors are not > > interested (according to your unsupported claim) which clearly show > > that the effect of cycle helmets is, on the whole, zero or negative. > > The problem is that the population studies don't show what you want them > to show. There is a reduction in injury and fatalities over whole > populations. What the AHZs try to say, without evidence, is that the > reason for the decrease in injury and fatalities is that cycling becomes > much less prevalent when helmet laws are introduced. They use junk > science to support this claim. Standing on a street corner and counting > cyclists before and after a helmet law is junk science, and they know it. Steven M. Scharf is mischaracterizing the data, and the sources of data, in the population studies of which Mr. Taylor speaks. A good description of the population studies is in Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475 (although you can find the information in other places as well). Briefly, in response to MHLs in Western Australia, bike advocates managed to get before and after counts of cyclists. These were done three ways: One was by trained observers, doing manual counts on similar days of the week, in similar seasons, with similar weather, etc. Another was done by automatic counters installed on bridges heavily used by cyclists. A third was by telephone surveys. The methods all showed the same thing: a sudden, step reduction in bicycling coincident with the helmet law (that is, not attributable to gradual changes in other factors). The drop was roughly 35% on the whole, and much higher for certain age groups (e.g. teen girls). The telephone surveys confirmed the reason for the drop: respondents said they were riding less, or had given up riding entirely, because of the helmet law. Now, serious head injuries did drop. Unfortunately, they dropped LESS than bicycling dropped. In other words, that means the risk of serious head injury per remaining rider had actually risen. I believe some of this information is also available at www.cyclehelmets.org. Those who don't wish to make a trip to their library for the cited article can find relevant information on that website. And, BTW, if Mr. Scharf is going to make claims of "junk science," he should be much more specific - and perhaps post something scientific himself, instead of his unsupported complaints! - Frank Krygowski   Date: 26 Sep 2006 08:20:36 From: Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:41:31 +0000 (UTC), steveo@panix.com (Steven M. > O'Neill) wrote: > > > a) for the speeds that walkers get up to, helmets may perhaps make > some difference - unlike cyclists; > > b) for a helmet that costs proportionate to the cost of the vehicle, a > motorist would be much better able to survive a crash in a motorcar. I > seem to recall reading that something around 50% of all motorcar > fatalities are due to head injuries - can someone confirm this? At one time, I saw a post from one of our German friends who gave the percentage of motorist fatalities due to head injuries. It was much higher, over 70%. He did give a citation, but I apparently didn't save that information. Since then, I've looked online for such information regarding American motorists, but haven't been able to find anything. I did recently read that 73% of American pedestrian fatalities are due to head injury. The other complication in all this is the precise phrasing. Bike helmet proponents tend to distort the facts by using imprecise and misleading phrasing, as in "Up to two thirds of bicycle fatalities involve head injuries." Long ago, I would read that as "Hmm. 2/3 of our 750 bike fatalities per year are caused by head injuries. If we prevented all those, we'd save 500 lives." Now I know that "up to" means "anything between zero and two thirds" so it could be zero. I know "involve" could mean a person whose torso was run over by a semi, and who also had a head injury, so he'd never survive anyway. And most important, I know "head injuries" could mean any scratch, bruise or abrasion above the neck. (That last trick is one Thompson and Rivara used in their study that claimed 85% reduction in head injuries". Anyway, I'd appreciate data on head injuries in automobiles, if anyone finds anything meaningful. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 08 Oct 2006 08:52:51 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again! In article <m38xjqzvy0.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > >> In article <m3d5935vj6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: >> > >> >> In article <m3d593k1wb.fsf@nospam.