| |
Main
Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:00:28
From: Paul Berg
Subject: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
--WebTV-Mail-27022-2772
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
~
News report from KGW TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 17, 2007
Portland police arrested a driver Friday afternoon after a bizarre chase
in which two cyclists were hit by a car in Southeast Portland.
It all started around 12:30 PM on 1000 block of Southeast Clinton
Street. Police said 46-year-old John Eschweiler was driving along when
he reported a cyclist kicked his car. Officers said Eschweiler sped up
and hit the cyclist, who rolled onto the hood of the car, smashing the
windshield.
The car continued on about 75 feet, sideswiping a car and hitting a
truck before turning a corner where another cyclist heading towards the
car was then hit, investigators said.
Police arrested Eschweiler and charged him with two counts of attempted
assault.
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy Mastne,
were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not life-threatening.
Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
~
--WebTV-Mail-27022-2772
Content-Description: signature
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html ><img
src="http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/M_IMAGE.11432118fbd.93.88.fa.d0.44413285.jpg"
width=100% ></html>
--WebTV-Mail-27022-2772--
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 07:22:03
From: Paul Berg
Subject: Can we get this thread to the 1,000 posts mark?
|
~
With the help of our friend from Ontario and some helmetless cyclists
the goal should be met.
~
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 18:18:59
From: Picachu is a recovering sex slave
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
I'm almost embarassed with this guy!
This IS America!
If he had gone for it he could've been
A BONA-FIDE CRAZED MASS MURDERING PSYCHOPATH
There is no spirit left in this country anymore,
only slackers
Aren't you mortified by this?
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 19:03:40
From: Woody Brison
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 6:30 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <1188194812.119646.110...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Woody Brison wrote:
> > This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
> > 5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
> > riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
> > so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
> > energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
> > a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
> > walking.
>
> Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.
OK, I'll bite. How does riding on the sidewalk relate to
bicycle velocity, energy, and impact injury?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 14:10:18
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <1188327820.715604.70350@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com >, Woody Brison wrote:
> On Aug 27, 6:30 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <1188194812.119646.110...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Woody Brison wrote:
>> > This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
>> > 5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
>> > riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
>> > so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
>> > energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
>> > a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
>> > walking.
>>
>> Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.
>
> OK, I'll bite. How does riding on the sidewalk relate to
> bicycle velocity, energy, and impact injury?
When was the last time you saw a post on the roadway (definition as per
IL vehicle code)? The posts are on the sidewalk.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 20:46:08
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 1:18 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov > wrote:
>
>
> just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that people who
> fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet for cycles) cannot
> make a claim against their insurance.Then they can make their choice as
> they see fit,and live by the consequences of their choice.
But what is your definition of a "reasonable precaution"?
It seems to me it should include at least three factors. First, the
danger without the "precaution" must be significant. Otherwise you're
in the position of requiring armor to play hopscotch. Not that the
handwringers wouldn't like that, I suppose...
Second, the "precaution" must be effective. It must actually reduce
the hazard enough to be worthwhile. A pocket full of ping-pong balls
won't keep you from drowning, so it would be silly to mandate it for
boaters.
Third, the "precaution" must do more good than harm. It can't
increase the hazard from other effects more than it decreases the
hazard from its intended effect.
There are probably other qualifications we can think of, but: Bicycle
helmets fail on all three of those I mentioned.
First, and most important, bicycling is NOT a significant risk of
serious head injury. That whole idea is a fiction, developed
specifically to market bike helmets. Neither the total number, nor
the per-hour rate of significant head injury due to bicycling is large
enough to justify helmets. Cycling is roughly as safe as driving or
walking.
Second, bike helmets have simply NOT proven effective. Their
widespread use has not decreased serious head injuries. And this is
not surprising, since they are designed and certified only for
extremely mild impacts, not the sorts of impacts that cause the vast
majority of serious injuries and deaths - rare as those are.
Third, the imposition of helmet laws has been proven to seriously
decrease bicycling, despite claims to the contrary. The same is
probably true for the scaremongering helmet promotion. This does more
harm than good, not only because the helmets are ineffective;
bicycling is a strong positive force for health, and driving people
away from it by law or by fear causes losses in public health.
I've listed citations for all these facts in the past. If anyone
wants them, let me know here and I'll list the citations yet again.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 11:22:35
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 2:06 am, Woody Brison <woody.bri...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 25, 9:49 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <46cf478a$0$27172$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
> > > 1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
> > > believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
> > > somehow worthless.
>
> > Because that is what it is. When I think of helmet, I think of something
> > like a motorcycle helmet or combat helmet or batting helmet, not a
> > flimsy foam cap. Calling it a 'helmet' is quite misleading IMO because it
> > gives people the impression that it is a protective device of much more
> > capability than it has.
>
> I'm reminded of Don Quixote, who got out his grandfathers'
> old armor, and the helm didn't have a visor so he made one
> of cardboard. He tested it and it was ineffective. So he
> made a new one, but he didn't test that, because he was
> getting tired of making them. These tests have to be real
> or they're just a scam.
>
> Note that a combat helmet is useless against a direct hit
> with a 10-inch shell. All armor has a range of energy for
> which it is effective. With the armor you're safer, within
> that range. Below that range there's no point and above it
> there's no point. The question is, what's the range and is
> it worth it.
>
> Note that while they test the helmets with a 14 mph
> collision, and it's supposed to exhibit a certain shock
> protection, it will reduce shock in a 28 mph collision. The
> range doesn't cut off sharp, it decreases gradually.
I am not sure that "decreases gradually" is totally correct. Mills
{1} in his study of bicycle helmets says "A good helmet should protect
the wearer for impacts up to 15 mph into a rigid flat surface." and
"Once the foam is more than 90 percent compressed it bottoms out and
the force on the head rises rapidly."
It looks to me like there the shock protection works to a point and
then catastrophically fails. I don't remember if Mills gives a point
when the helmet foam is expected to compact to 90%
1. Mills, N. J. (1990). Protective capability of bicycle helmets.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 24(1), 55-60.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 11:51:01
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
John Kane wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2:06 am, Woody Brison <woody.bri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 25, 9:49 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <46cf478a$0$27172$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>>> 1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
>>>> believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock
>>>> is somehow worthless.
>>
>>> Because that is what it is. When I think of helmet, I think of
>>> something like a motorcycle helmet or combat helmet or batting
>>> helmet, not a flimsy foam cap. Calling it a 'helmet' is quite
>>> misleading IMO because it gives people the impression that it is a
>>> protective device of much more capability than it has.
>>
>> I'm reminded of Don Quixote, who got out his grandfathers'
>> old armor, and the helm didn't have a visor so he made one
>> of cardboard. He tested it and it was ineffective. So he
>> made a new one, but he didn't test that, because he was
>> getting tired of making them. These tests have to be real
>> or they're just a scam.
>>
>> Note that a combat helmet is useless against a direct hit
>> with a 10-inch shell. All armor has a range of energy for
>> which it is effective. With the armor you're safer, within
>> that range. Below that range there's no point and above it
>> there's no point. The question is, what's the range and is
>> it worth it.
>>
>> Note that while they test the helmets with a 14 mph
>> collision, and it's supposed to exhibit a certain shock
>> protection, it will reduce shock in a 28 mph collision. The
>> range doesn't cut off sharp, it decreases gradually.
>
> I am not sure that "decreases gradually" is totally correct. Mills
> {1} in his study of bicycle helmets says "A good helmet should protect
> the wearer for impacts up to 15 mph into a rigid flat surface." and
> "Once the foam is more than 90 percent compressed it bottoms out and
> the force on the head rises rapidly."
So of course why wear one at all! People who argue that would also tell
cops not to bother with bullet-proof vests because A) they won't stop AK47s
and B) they won't prevent fatal head shots.
> It looks to me like there the shock protection works to a point and
> then catastrophically fails. I don't remember if Mills gives a point
> when the helmet foam is expected to compact to 90%
Certainly after an /unprotected/ skull would be damaged to some degree.
> 1. Mills, N. J. (1990). Protective capability of bicycle helmets.
> British Journal of Sports Medicine, 24(1), 55-60.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 21:37:35
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:51:01 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
said in <46d31d1e$0$23517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >:
>So of course why wear one at all! People who argue that would also tell
>cops not to bother with bullet-proof vests because A) they won't stop AK47s
>and B) they won't prevent fatal head shots.
Misleading analogy. Bullet-proof vests are actually designed to be
bullet proof, helmets are not designed or certified to resist the
kinds of force involved in a serious or fatal bike accident.
Actually there is some evidence that they may exacerbate the worst
kinds of injuries, but, as these studies acknowledge, this has yet
to be investigated to any great extent. The people with research
budgets are too busy on policy-based evidence making to spend time
looking into what really happens, I guess.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 18:17:49
From: Woody Brison
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 9:05 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 27, 1:57 am, Woody Brison <woody.bri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 5:07 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
> > > this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
> > > ought to be able to make your own call.
>
> > If all individuals paid for their own hospitalization,
> > that'd be fine, but we pay as a group. Insurance premiums
> > and taxes. It makes sense to try to protect the group
> > from excessive levies.
>
> Let's see: In the US, there are only about 750 fatalities from
> bicycling in a year -
So I'd guess there must be a commensurate number of
serious injuries. Let's define 'serious' for the moment
as "expensive". How many? 3X? 4X? That would be 3000
serious injuries. How serious? Let's guess $10,000
average seriousness. That's $30M a year. But the vast
majority of cyclists must have insurance. So the levy
on the public might be somewhere in the range of 3 to 6
M$ a year. Each person's share of that is about 1 or 2
cents per year. I'd not call that a heavy levy. I'd
say, if we can decide that bike helmets really help,
then I personally would wear one - usually, but I'd
hate to get a ticket if I skipped the helmet one day
to ride 6 blocks over to my friend's. I think maybe
this mandatory helmet law isn't all that good an idea.
>...a figure roughly equal to the deaths from poison
> gases. But there are hundreds of thousands of fatalities each year
> from heart disease; from stroke; from lung disease.
So let's have a universal no smoking law. It costs me
400 to 800 dollars a year in defraying medical expenses
for smokers.
> Major causes of medical expenses in this country are lack of exercise
> and obesity.
Chewing is exercise!
> About 40,000 motorists die each year, most from head injuries.
It may eventually be possible to get robots to drive the
vehicles. I don't think that area's getting enough focus.
The technical problem itself is almost trivial, it's the
social acceptance, funding, legals, etc. People want the
robot to drive them from A to B while they sleep, but it
would be a tremendous advance if we could just tell the
computer to drive along this road here and don't hit
anything. Tell it turn here, park there.
>... Tens
> of thousands of people are killed due to falls while just walking
> around their own homes.
Well, that makes me scratch my head. Whoa! I scratched
my head! Flesh eating bacteria!!!
At some point we have to find a way to rely on good old
unvarnished American natural sunshiny innocent Common
Sense. I just don't see any other way around it.
> So quit hiding your private information!
Yumpin' Yiminy, yes sir! I mean no sir! What
information do I need to furnish about my privates.
>... We demand to know your age,
You know my age. It's in every data base.
> your weight,
That depends on the situation. In orbit, it's zero.
During launch it could be several tons. What you
really want to know is my mass. Believe it or not,
I've known ROCKET SCIENTISTS to get that confused.
>... your percent body fat,
Depends on which part of my body. Some parts are pretty
lean and other parts get quite fat at times.
>... your diet in detail for the past
> six months (including whether you eat meat),
I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday,
how in Sam Hill am I going to be able to detail out
six months? Couldn't you want something else?
>... the amount of alcohol you
> consume,
That's easy. Zero. I'm a Mormon.
>... and how much time you spend in contact with cigarette smoke.
Well, about six minutes a year. If I have to go into
a bar to ask directions. But since smokers smoke into
the atmosphere, and since that's the source of breath
for most of us, you might be able to guess this answer.
> We want to know how many hours you drive in a year,
Hours? minutes would probably be a better unit.
>... and how many hours
> you swim.
I used to swim a lot, like an hour a day. But I was
getting so many infections that I decided the rec center
pool is having just too many bodies in it. So I went to
my second-best exercise, cycling. I'm thinking of
getting one of those job things so I can buy my own pool.
>... We want to know whether you live in a place that has those
> ridiculously hazardous things called "stairs,"
Yeah but I only touch them going up.
>... and whether you wear a
> helmet when walking down them.
I don't walk down. I launch from the top step and land on
the landing below. Fun! Until the lumbar disks fail.
>... We want to know what caused the death
> of each of your relatives.
Relatives? I don't have any. They all dead.
>... We want to know whether you ever play
> basketball (the number one recreational reason for visiting an ER).
Well, I did take my daughter out and showed her the
basics. Haven't been able to move my right arm since.
> And before you decide to do something really risky - like ride a
> motorcycle, or go up in a light plane - we want you to clear it with
> all of us here. Get our permission first, dammit!
>From my observation on this thread alone - I don't even
remember how I wandered onto it - there isn't likely to
be agreement on much of anything, not even on the laws
of logic, let alone whether heavier-than-air flight is
possible for me. I think heavy thoughts!
> Because all those things are probably worse than bicycling. And it
> makes sense to try to protect the group from excessive levies. Right?
Right. Address the bigger problems first. I think we
could schedule this bike helmet thing for discussion
again in about 2525.
Wood
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 12:24:02
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <1188238669.186905.261180@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
Woody Brison <woody.brison@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>That depends on the situation. In orbit, it's zero.
>During launch it could be several tons. What you
>really want to know is my mass. Believe it or not,
>I've known ROCKET SCIENTISTS to get that confused.
Because the term "weight" refers to mass in most contexts, and always
has. A balance scale measures mass. The contexts in which it does
not (e.g. when talking about "weight transfer" during braking or
acceleration) are the unusual ones. In the case of one's body weight,
it's mass being referred to.
The Physics 101 claim that "weight" refers only to force just isn't
true, except perhaps Physics 101 textbook problems.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 18:08:36
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
> On Aug 27, 9:05 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ... Tens
>> of thousands of people are killed due to falls while just walking
>> around their own homes.
Woody Brison wrote:
> Well, that makes me scratch my head. Whoa! I scratched
> my head! Flesh eating bacteria!!!
>
> At some point we have to find a way to rely on good old
> unvarnished American natural sunshiny innocent Common
> Sense. I just don't see any other way around it.
There are more bicycles in the world than cars and they are being
produced faster. Cycling does make (common) sense!
\\paul
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 15:13:33
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 2:06 am, Woody Brison <woody.bri...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 25, 9:49 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>
> > It's a question of risk. Bicycling has a low risk of injury like many
> > daily activities. If we aren't going to pad ourselves up for daily
> > activities that actually are just as more risky than bicycling, why
> > should we do it for bicycling?
>
> This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
> 5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
> riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
> so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
> energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
> a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
> walking.
You're confusing _your_ imagination of risk with the actual level of
risk.
That is, because you can imagine cyclists running into posts, and you
remember a bit of physics, you think you've got a good assessment of
the relative risk.
But your estimate doesn't match reality. Look at the comparisons
between cyclists and pedestrians in the tables at
http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm
Cycling really does seem to be safer than walking, at least near
traffic. That's largely because bicyclists are vehicles, and they
generally flow along with the traffic, following the same rules.
Those rules are well-designed to minimize conflicts. Pedestrians
operate by different rules, traveling along different paths that
intersect motor vehicle paths at odd moments. It's a more chaotic
situation.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 15:05:56
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 1:57 am, Woody Brison <woody.bri...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 5:07 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
> > this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
> > ought to be able to make your own call.
>
> If all individuals paid for their own hospitalization,
> that'd be fine, but we pay as a group. Insurance premiums
> and taxes. It makes sense to try to protect the group
> from excessive levies.
Let's see: In the US, there are only about 750 fatalities from
bicycling in a year - a figure roughly equal to the deaths from poison
gases. But there are hundreds of thousands of fatalities each year
from heart disease; from stroke; from lung disease.
Major causes of medical expenses in this country are lack of exercise
and obesity.
About 40,000 motorists die each year, most from head injuries. Tens
of thousands of people are killed due to falls while just walking
around their own homes.
So quit hiding your private information! We demand to know your age,
your weight, your percent body fat, your diet in detail for the past
six months (including whether you eat meat), the amount of alcohol you
consume, and how much time you spend in contact with cigarette smoke.
We want to know how many hours you drive in a year, and how many hours
you swim. We want to know whether you live in a place that has those
ridiculously hazardous things called "stairs," and whether you wear a
helmet when walking down them. We want to know what caused the death
of each of your relatives. We want to know whether you ever play
basketball (the number one recreational reason for visiting an ER).
And before you decide to do something really risky - like ride a
motorcycle, or go up in a light plane - we want you to clear it with
all of us here. Get our permission first, dammit!
Because all those things are probably worse than bicycling. And it
makes sense to try to protect the group from excessive levies. Right?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 06:06:52
From: Woody Brison
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 25, 9:49 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <46cf478a$0$27172$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
> > 1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
> > believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
> > somehow worthless.
>
> Because that is what it is. When I think of helmet, I think of something
> like a motorcycle helmet or combat helmet or batting helmet, not a
> flimsy foam cap. Calling it a 'helmet' is quite misleading IMO because it
> gives people the impression that it is a protective device of much more
> capability than it has.
I'm reminded of Don Quixote, who got out his grandfathers'
old armor, and the helm didn't have a visor so he made one
of cardboard. He tested it and it was ineffective. So he
made a new one, but he didn't test that, because he was
getting tired of making them. These tests have to be real
or they're just a scam.
Note that a combat helmet is useless against a direct hit
with a 10-inch shell. All armor has a range of energy for
which it is effective. With the armor you're safer, within
that range. Below that range there's no point and above it
there's no point. The question is, what's the range and is
it worth it.
Note that while they test the helmets with a 14 mph
collision, and it's supposed to exhibit a certain shock
protection, it will reduce shock in a 28 mph collision. The
range doesn't cut off sharp, it decreases gradually.
> It's a question of risk. Bicycling has a low risk of injury like many
> daily activities. If we aren't going to pad ourselves up for daily
> activities that actually are just as more risky than bicycling, why
> should we do it for bicycling?
This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
walking.
Wood
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:55:56
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <1188194812.119646.110280@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >,
Woody Brison <woody.brison@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
>5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
>riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
>so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
>energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
>a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
>walking.
More likely to hit it walking, I'd wager, because people less often
pay attention to where they are going when walking than when cycling,
probably precisely because the consequences of hitting something while
walking are usually small.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 08:23:47
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Woody Brison wrote:
<snip >
> Note that while they test the helmets with a 14 mph
> collision, and it's supposed to exhibit a certain shock
> protection, it will reduce shock in a 28 mph collision. The
> range doesn't cut off sharp, it decreases gradually.
This is true. Also, what many AHZ's apparently don't understand
(actually they do understand it but they pretend not to) is that a 30
mph collision does not usually result in a 30 mph head impact. By the
time the cyclist's head impacts something, the rate of impact is greatly
reduced by decelleration (sliding against the road, etc.).
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 17:48:30
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:23:47 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
said in <46d2ec3c$0$27229$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >:
>This is true. Also, what many AHZ's apparently don't understand
>(actually they do understand it but they pretend not to) is that a 30
>mph collision does not usually result in a 30 mph head impact. By the
>time the cyclist's head impacts something, the rate of impact is greatly
>reduced by decelleration (sliding against the road, etc.).
LOL! So you start sliding before you hit the road, do you?
Here's an extract from the Transport Research Laboratory's report
PPR213:
"in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases,
linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels
corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a
marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be
expected for a helmeted head. The true response of the bare human
head to oblique, glancing blows is not known and these observations
could not be concluded with certainty, but may be indicative of
possible trends. A greater understanding is therefore needed to
allow an accurate assessment of injury tolerance in oblique impacts.
Linear impact performance, head inertia and helmet fit were
identified as important contributory factors to the level of induced
rotational motion and injury potential. The design of helmets to
include a broad range of sizes was also concluded to be detrimental
to helmet safety, in terms of both reduced linear and rotational
impact performance. The introduction into EN1078 of an oblique
impact test could ensure that helmets do not provide an excessive
risk of rotational head injury."
Redux: cycle crashes are complex, helmet tests are overly
simplistic, helmets might make the worst kind of injuries worse.
All of which may contribute to explaining why large-scale increases
in helmet wearing have *never* produced a measurable change in head
injury rates in *any* real cyclist population. Obviously it's not
as simple as you make out.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 10:35:37
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d2ec3c$0$27229$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, SMS wrote:
> Woody Brison wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Note that while they test the helmets with a 14 mph
>> collision, and it's supposed to exhibit a certain shock
>> protection, it will reduce shock in a 28 mph collision. The
>> range doesn't cut off sharp, it decreases gradually.
>
> This is true. Also, what many AHZ's
Who is trying to ban bicycle helmets? Nobody that I've noticed.
> apparently don't understand
> (actually they do understand it but they pretend not to) is that a 30
> mph collision does not usually result in a 30 mph head impact. By the
> time the cyclist's head impacts something, the rate of impact is greatly
> reduced by decelleration (sliding against the road, etc.).
Which is part of why bicycling mishaps rarely result in more than minor
injuries foam hat worn or not.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:55:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d2ec3c$0$27229$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>> Woody Brison wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Note that while they test the helmets with a 14 mph
>>> collision, and it's supposed to exhibit a certain shock
>>> protection, it will reduce shock in a 28 mph collision. The
>>> range doesn't cut off sharp, it decreases gradually.
>>
>> This is true. Also, what many AHZ's
>
> Who is trying to ban bicycle helmets? Nobody that I've noticed.
"I am against helmets on all grounds" -- Brent P
>> apparently don't understand
>> (actually they do understand it but they pretend not to) is that a 30
>> mph collision does not usually result in a 30 mph head impact. By the
>> time the cyclist's head impacts something, the rate of impact is
>> greatly reduced by decelleration (sliding against the road, etc.).
>
> Which is part of why bicycling mishaps rarely result in more than
> minor injuries foam hat worn or not.
Spoken like someone whose head has bounced off the pavement numerous times.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 22:36:34
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <46d2ec3c$0$27229$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>> Woody Brison wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Note that while they test the helmets with a 14 mph
>>>> collision, and it's supposed to exhibit a certain shock
>>>> protection, it will reduce shock in a 28 mph collision. The
>>>> range doesn't cut off sharp, it decreases gradually.
>>>
>>> This is true. Also, what many AHZ's
>>
>> Who is trying to ban bicycle helmets? Nobody that I've noticed.
>
> "I am against helmets on all grounds" -- Brent P
>
>>> apparently don't understand
>>> (actually they do understand it but they pretend not to) is that a
>>> 30 mph collision does not usually result in a 30 mph head impact. By
>>> the time the cyclist's head impacts something, the rate of impact is
>>> greatly reduced by decelleration (sliding against the road, etc.).
>>
>> Which is part of why bicycling mishaps rarely result in more than
>> minor injuries foam hat worn or not.
>
> Spoken like someone whose head has bounced off the pavement numerous
> times.
>
>
>
Without a helmet.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 07:30:21
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <1188194812.119646.110280@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >, Woody Brison wrote:
> This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
> 5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
> riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
> so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
> energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
> a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
> walking.
Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 05:57:23
From: Woody Brison
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 21, 5:07 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com > wrote:
> But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
> this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
> ought to be able to make your own call.
If all individuals paid for their own hospitalization,
that'd be fine, but we pay as a group. Insurance premiums
and taxes. It makes sense to try to protect the group
from excessive levies.
Wood
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:52:46
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <1188194243.227980.93900@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
Woody Brison <woody.brison@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Aug 21, 5:07 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
>> this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
>> ought to be able to make your own call.
>
>If all individuals paid for their own hospitalization,
>that'd be fine, but we pay as a group. Insurance premiums
>and taxes. It makes sense to try to protect the group
>from excessive levies.
Once that principle is accepted it leads directly to totalitarianism
with no intervening qualitative distinctions.
Unless you're my insurer (not another policyholder, but the insurer
itself), you've got no business trying to restrict my activities. If
the government, the hospitals, or some other organization I did not
contract with to provide care offers to do so, I incur no obligations
-- particularly, no obligations to avoid activities which would result
in them providing care -- as a result.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 17:18:35
From: Jim Yanik
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Woody Brison <woody.brison@gmail.com > wrote in
news:1188194243.227980.93900@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 21, 5:07 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
>> this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
>> ought to be able to make your own call.
>
> If all individuals paid for their own hospitalization,
> that'd be fine, but we pay as a group. Insurance premiums
> and taxes. It makes sense to try to protect the group
> from excessive levies.
>
> Wood
>
just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that people who
fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet for cycles) cannot
make a claim against their insurance.Then they can make their choice as
they see fit,and live by the consequences of their choice.
Of course,by law,hosptal emergency rooms STILL have to treat them,and that
cost just gets added to everyone's medical expenses.
(like all the illegal aliens who use emergency rooms as their primary care
provider)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 21:37:35
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On 27 Aug 2007 17:18:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov > said in
<Xns999987686FB29jyanikkuanet@64.209.0.86 >:
>just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that people who
>fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet for cycles) cannot
>make a claim against their insurance.
For some values of reasonable. According to the largest ever study,
encompassing over a million bike accidents, wearing a helmet is
associated with a small but significant increase in risk of death
and a small but statistically insignificant increase in risk of
injury.
Yes, I did type that correctly, it is *increase* not decrease. So
arguably insurance companies should be telling people not to wear
them.
Actually, of course, it's nothing like that simple. Which is
probably why the insurers of large cycling bodies like CTC and LAB
do not make any stipulation in regard to helmets on their group
rides.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 11:33:11
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2007 17:18:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> said in
> <Xns999987686FB29jyanikkuanet@64.209.0.86>:
>
>> just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that
>> people who fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet
>> for cycles) cannot make a claim against their insurance.
>
> For some values of reasonable. According to the largest ever study,
> encompassing over a million bike accidents, wearing a helmet is
> associated with a small but significant increase in risk of death
> and a small but statistically insignificant increase in risk of
> injury.
>
> Yes, I did type that correctly, it is *increase* not decrease. So
> arguably insurance companies should be telling people not to wear
> them.
What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports or
emergency room reports or what?
> Actually, of course, it's nothing like that simple. Which is
> probably why the insurers of large cycling bodies like CTC and LAB
> do not make any stipulation in regard to helmets on their group
> rides.
>
> Guy
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 22:29:01
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:33:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net > said in <fb1gq502v5e@news2.newsguy.com>:
>What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
>discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
>randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports or
>emergency room reports or what?
"Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A Reevaluation of the Impacts of the
CPSC Bicycle Standard and Helmet Use, Rodgers GB. 1988. Journal of
Products Liability: 1988,11:307-317"
Injury figures from NEISS (i.e. CPSC) and other figures form CPSC,
Bell Sports and other sources.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 17:55:27
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:33:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> said in <fb1gq502v5e@news2.newsguy.com>:
>
>> What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
>> discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
>> randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports
>> or emergency room reports or what?
>
> "Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A Reevaluation of the Impacts of the
> CPSC Bicycle Standard and Helmet Use, Rodgers GB. 1988. Journal of
> Products Liability: 1988,11:307-317"
>
> Injury figures from NEISS (i.e. CPSC) and other figures form CPSC,
> Bell Sports and other sources.
NEISS collects data from 100 emergency rooms. That means that they
only have data from accidents that resulted in injuries severe enough
to require a hospital visit.
That being the case, one can't say with any certainty that they say
anything about the probability of being injured in an accident, only
about what happens if that accident produces an injury of sufficient
severity to result in a visit to the ER.
Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
methodology.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 15:40:50
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
J. Clarke wrote:
> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
> of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
> result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
> methodology.
Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces the
number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits. Unfortunately
you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion because they were
wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the hospital anyway so the ER
statistics include your accident in the statistics?"
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 07:58:55
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:40:50 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
said in <46d4a429$0$27248$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >:
>historically that's been the problem with measuring the
>effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces the
>number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits
Yup. As Thompson, Rivara and Thompson proved so well, helmets
prevent over 70% of lower limb injuries. Yay for helmets!
Oh wait, we were looking at the *proportion* of head injuries. Looks
like you haven't read the evidence, then. Again.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 18:22:44
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d4a429$0$27248$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, SMS wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
>> of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
>> result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
>> methodology.
>
> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces the
> number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits. Unfortunately
> you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion because they were
> wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the hospital anyway so the ER
> statistics include your accident in the statistics?"
On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 17:36:29
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d4a429$0$27248$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
>>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
>>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
>>> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
>>> accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
>>> under that methodology.
>>
>> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
>> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
>> the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
>> Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
>> because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
>> hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
>> statistics?"
>
> On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
> wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
> goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
> there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
> or not use protective gear.
ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.
Go figger!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:02:52
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:36:29 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
said in <46d4bf98$0$15420$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >:
>ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
>support their every view.
They might do, I've never seen an anti helmet zealot so I wouldn't
know about that. Who's proposing a law forbidding helmet use?
Incidentally, the reason for looking at population studies is that
the hospital-based prospective studies claim to be predictive. It's
reasonable to measure those predicted effects against what happens.
And as it turns out the prediction is not borne out.
The same applied to HRT and heart disease.
http://chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Observational_studies
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 21:15:38
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d4bf98$0$15420$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <46d4a429$0$27248$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
>>>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
>>>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
>>>> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
>>>> accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
>>>> under that methodology.
>>>
>>> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
>>> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
>>> the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
>>> Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
>>> because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
>>> hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
>>> statistics?"
>>
>> On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
>> wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
>> goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
>> there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
>> or not use protective gear.
>
> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
> support their every view.
Clue time: a zealot tries to force other people to do as he does. There
is nobody trying to force you or anyone not to wear a foam hat. You're the
one with the apparent agenda (despite your denials) of forcing everyone
to wear the foam hats.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 21:49:41
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
P-brained Brent wrote:
> In article <46d4bf98$0$15420$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <46d4a429$0$27248$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
>>>>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
>>>>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
>>>>> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage
>>>>> of accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get
>>>>> reported under that methodology.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
>>>> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear
>>>> reduces the number of emergency room (or other medical office)
>>>> visits. Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a
>>>> concussion because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please
>>>> go to the hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your
>>>> accident in the statistics?"
>>>
>>> On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
>>> wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person
>>> who goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top
>>> of that there is the variable of how likely these personality types
>>> are to use or not use protective gear.
>>
>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
>> statistics to support their every view.
>
> Clue time: a zealot tries to force other people to do as he does.
> There is nobody trying to force you or anyone not to wear a foam hat.
> You're the one with the apparent agenda (despite your denials) of
> forcing everyone to wear the foam hats.
You're a clueless, lying moron. You obviously never read old threads with
the likes of Flailor and others disparaging everyone who chooses to wear
lids as therefore pro-MHL; it's dishonest, illogical and flat-out wrong.
I don't give a flying fuck if you wear a foam hat. Period.
You're really pathetic.
Bill "and to think I started to feel sorry for you" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 00:05:49
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d4faf0$0$28853$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> You're a clueless, lying moron. You obviously never read old threads with
> the likes of Flailor and others disparaging everyone who chooses to wear
> lids as therefore pro-MHL; it's dishonest, illogical and flat-out wrong.
I very well did read the threads, and while I don't remember every post
from a decade ago, there's little difference between a religious zealot
that is working to convert people and a person who wants a law to force
everyone to behave according to the rules of the religion.
> I don't give a flying fuck if you wear a foam hat. Period.
And yet you keep replying to me, insulting me for not believing as you
do. Your actions speak louder than words. I didn't come after you,
insulting you, you came after me, zealot.
> You're really pathetic.
Nice projection.
> Bill "and to think I started to feel sorry for you" S.
Still childish I see.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 18:28:16
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
> support their every view.
They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
place in the world of the AHZ's.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 10:20:24
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:28:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
said in <46d4cb67$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >:
>They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
>place in the world of the AHZ's.
Once again Steven M Scharf falsely accuses others of his own worst
faults. Here's a checklist for you, Scharf - how many of the
following have you read?
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Helmet_evidence/By_date
Note that several of your opponents in this debate show familiarity
with the literature and cite it frequently. Whereas you... don't.
Yup, your spectacularly stupid statement is in fact a precise
reversal of the truth.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 21:22:55
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d4cb67$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
>> support their every view.
>
> They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
> place in the world of the AHZ's.
Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
those wanting to do the forcing resort to being clever with statistics,
emotional stories, appeals that something is better than nothing, and
insults and belittling to anyone who doesn't want to wear bicycle
helmets/
I made my decision regarding helmets as an observer to the helmet wars in
the bicycling newsgroups over a decade ago, I see nothing has changed.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 21:44:14
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d4cb67$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
>>> statistics to support their every view.
>>
>> They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
>> place in the world of the AHZ's.
>
> Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
> things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
> those wanting to do the forcing
BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that they're a good idea and
effective in preventing or diminishing injury -- are NOT therefore in favor
of mandatory helmet laws. STOP THIS DISINGENUOUS BULLSHIT.
If you want to flame those who DO promote MHLs, then by all means do so.
But this fallacious crap of lumping people who CHOOSE to wear a helmet in
with those who would mandate it has got to stop.
Otherwise, you're no better than Feckless Frank, Flailor, Flogger and the
other F-heads.
HTH.
Bill "stop being a clueless lying moron dammit" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 23:56:08
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d4f9ac$0$28863$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <46d4cb67$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
>>>> statistics to support their every view.
>>>
>>> They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
>>> place in the world of the AHZ's.
>>
>> Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
>> things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
>> those wanting to do the forcing
>
> BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
> People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that they're a good idea and
> effective in preventing or diminishing injury -- are NOT therefore in favor
> of mandatory helmet laws. STOP THIS DISINGENUOUS BULLSHIT.
That's quite bullshit. I've had your kind yell at me, pull along side me,
etc telling me how I need to wear the foam hat. I've had more
interactions with bicycle helmet zealots 'preaching' to me in the last
decade than I've had from all other religions combined.
> If you want to flame those who DO promote MHLs, then by all means do so.
Funny, you make your case the same the MHL types do, right down to the
insults.
> But this fallacious crap of lumping people who CHOOSE to wear a helmet in
> with those who would mandate it has got to stop.
You don't just choose to wear one, you clearly seek to expand the
religion and insult anyone who chooses not to.
> Otherwise, you're no better than Feckless Frank, Flailor, Flogger and the
> other F-heads.
When it comes to the foam hats, Frank makes the sound arguments. Of
course your pro-helmet arguments are about on par with Frank's
pro-speed-hump arguments.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 21:00:58
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P? wrote:
> ...Of
> course your pro-helmet arguments are about on par with Frank's
> pro-speed-hump arguments.
Nothing wrong with the occasional quick..., oh sorry, family newsgroups.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 22:04:15
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d4f9ac$0$28863$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <46d4cb67$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
>>>>> statistics to support their every view.
>>>>
>>>> They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have
>>>> no place in the world of the AHZ's.
>>>
>>> Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
>>> things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering
>>> while those wanting to do the forcing
>>
>> BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong
>> wrong wrong. People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that
>> they're a good idea and effective in preventing or diminishing
>> injury -- are NOT therefore in favor of mandatory helmet laws. STOP
>> THIS DISINGENUOUS BULLSHIT.
>
> That's quite bullshit. I've had your kind yell at me, pull along side
> me, etc telling me how I need to wear the foam hat. I've had more
> interactions with bicycle helmet zealots 'preaching' to me in the last
> decade than I've had from all other religions combined.
You're a weak-minded liar.
PLONK
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 00:09:45
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d4fe5a$0$32491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <46d4f9ac$0$28863$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <46d4cb67$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
>>>>>> statistics to support their every view.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have
>>>>> no place in the world of the AHZ's.
>>>>
>>>> Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
>>>> things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering
>>>> while those wanting to do the forcing
>>>
>>> BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong
>>> wrong wrong. People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that
>>> they're a good idea and effective in preventing or diminishing
>>> injury -- are NOT therefore in favor of mandatory helmet laws. STOP
>>> THIS DISINGENUOUS BULLSHIT.
>>
>> That's quite bullshit. I've had your kind yell at me, pull along side
>> me, etc telling me how I need to wear the foam hat. I've had more
>> interactions with bicycle helmet zealots 'preaching' to me in the last
>> decade than I've had from all other religions combined.
> You're a weak-minded liar.
no lie at all... there was this one woman who pulled along side me and
honked and then proceeded to block traffic to tell me about the virtues
of foam hat wearing. I've had oncoming drivers yell 'wear a helmet' at
me. It's in 3rd place after 'get off the road' and 'get on the sidewalk'
for things yelled at me while riding.
> PLONK
Giving up so easily in your quest to convert a nonbeliever?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 21:03:11
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P? wrote:
> ...
> no lie at all... there was this one woman who pulled along side me and
> honked and then proceeded to block traffic to tell me about the virtues
> of foam hat wearing. I've had oncoming drivers yell 'wear a helmet' at
> me. It's in 3rd place after 'get off the road' and 'get on the sidewalk'
> for things yelled at me while riding....
Next time I am in The Great City of Chicaguh (sic), I am going to yell
"wear a magic foam hat" at every lidless cyclist in case it is Brent P. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 23:13:47
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:55:27 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net > said in <fb25tc0i2a@news2.newsguy.com>:
>NEISS collects data from 100 emergency rooms. That means that they
>only have data from accidents that resulted in injuries severe enough
>to require a hospital visit.
Yes.
I never said it was a *great* study, only the biggest :-)
Note that the prospective pro-helmet studies use much the same data
sources. It's all weak evidence, compared with time-series.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:58:51
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Woody Brison wrote:
> On Aug 21, 5:07 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
>> this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
>> ought to be able to make your own call.
>
> If all individuals paid for their own hospitalization,
> that'd be fine, but we pay as a group. Insurance premiums
> and taxes. It makes sense to try to protect the group
> from excessive levies.
For life insurance, all of this is considered. Obesity, cholesterol,
dangerous activities, etc. With employer provided health insurance I
guess they could base the employee contribution based on this, but I
don't know of any employer that does that.
I know that in some states that have lifted the motorcycle helmet law,
they require proof of health insurance.
The number of bicycle accidents where a helmet would make a significant
difference is so small that it makes no sense to classify bicycling as
an activity that has an impact on insurance rates.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 16:15:26
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 05:57:23 -0000, Woody Brison wrote:
> If all individuals paid for their own hospitalization,
> that'd be fine, but we pay as a group. Insurance premiums
> and taxes. It makes sense to try to protect the group
> from excessive levies.
Maybe people who want to exercise their right to not wear seat belts,
helmets etc would be willing to sign an agreement that, if they require
hospitalization as a result, they be taken out the back and shot instead.
No more physical suffering for them, less financial suffering for the
rest of us. It's a win-win solution!
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 14:30:36
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 26, 12:56 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
>
>
> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not helmet
> wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and emotions and
> nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
Although I disagree, I'm curious what _you'd_ recommend for stopping
the imposition of mandatory helmet laws, and the rabid promotion of
helmets.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 21:23:38
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 26, 12:56 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not
>> helmet wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and
>> emotions and nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
>
>
> Although I disagree, I'm curious what _you'd_ recommend for stopping
> the imposition of mandatory helmet laws, and the rabid promotion of
> helmets.
Get to the decision makers and leaders in the legislature. Don't do it
publicly. In a word, Lobby. :o)
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:37:07
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <ubmAi.964$j23.151@trndny06 >,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote:
>
>Get to the decision makers and leaders in the legislature. Don't do it
>publicly. In a word, Lobby. :o)
As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying
the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a
man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came
into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but
to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but
something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary
that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be
petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs
to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I
do then?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 23:20:57
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 25, 4:59 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> >
> > So you do think they are magic hats. Go add up the vectors and figure
> > it out.
>
> Vectors schmectors.
:-) Yes, we know. Vectors are part of mathematics. And Bill doesn't
do math. Bill only does juvenile remarks like "Vectors schmectors"
and imagines he's witty.
Bill, if you _ever_ post anything intelligent and significant, I'll
make a point to compliment you. But, AFAIK, it hasn't happened yet.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 13:21:16
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 25, 10:20 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:43:59 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me>
> said in <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368...@roadrunner.com>:
>
> >Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph with
> >huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster?
>
> Have you ever looked at the tests to which helmets are subjected
> (and routinely fail)? A 45mph crash, or one involving a motor
> vehicle, is so far outside these parameters as to make your rhetoric
> worse than simply fatuous, and put it into the category of
> dangerously misleading.
>
> Incidentally, the leading cause of cyclist deaths in London (a
> well-studied city) is crushing by turning goods vehicles. Few if
> any of these cyclists die of head injury, but a lot of them are
> wearing helmets. The ones that aren't, the press often make a point
> of mentioning it. Presumably they believe, as Thompson, Rivara and
> Thompson evidently do, that helmets prevent almost all non head
> injuries as well...
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
It's to reinforce the seat belt usage campaign. If you let up on one
they fear the other will suffer. This way they stay on the good side
of law enforcement.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 14:01:47
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote:
> On Aug 25, 10:20 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:43:59 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me>
>> said in <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368...@roadrunner.com>:
>>
>>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45
>>> mph with huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster?
>>
>> Have you ever looked at the tests to which helmets are subjected
>> (and routinely fail)? A 45mph crash, or one involving a motor
>> vehicle, is so far outside these parameters as to make your rhetoric
>> worse than simply fatuous, and put it into the category of
>> dangerously misleading.
>>
>> Incidentally, the leading cause of cyclist deaths in London (a
>> well-studied city) is crushing by turning goods vehicles. Few if
>> any of these cyclists die of head injury, but a lot of them are
>> wearing helmets. The ones that aren't, the press often make a point
>> of mentioning it. Presumably they believe, as Thompson, Rivara and
>> Thompson evidently do, that helmets prevent almost all non head
>> injuries as well...
>>
>> Guy
>> --
>> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
>> posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>>
>> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
>
> It's to reinforce the seat belt usage campaign. If you let up on one
> they fear the other will suffer. This way they stay on the good side
> of law enforcement.
Let's just hope Guy doesn't mung his usenet addy again to get past
plonkitude. Forgot how PEACEFUL it was for a few months there.
:-8
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 22:57:06
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:01:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
said in <46d098d7$0$16483$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >:
>Let's just hope Guy doesn't mung his usenet addy again to get past
>plonkitude. Forgot how PEACEFUL it was for a few months there.
Let's hope Bill eventually acquires Clue. The address has not
changed for a long time.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 20:00:11
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 24, 6:47 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 7:56 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> In any case, the chance of getting the AHZ's to actually read all the
> >> studies is about nil. Myself and others have provided endless
> >> references, citations, studies etc.,
>
> > That is a bald-faced lie (and a poorly constructed sentence!).
>
> > Scroll back in this thread. Check the number of citations,
> > references, or data that SMS has provided.
>
> > In most threads of this type, the count is exactly zero. This time,
> > he's got one post that cited two studies - a near-record for him.
> > However, he's not capable of discussing them intelligently, nor
> > understanding the problems with those studies, nor providing a
> > realistic defense of them. I think I clearly explained the problem of
> > self-selection in case-control studies - but he doesn't register any
> > understanding.
>
> > Worse, he repeatedly mistakes the case-control studies as being "all
> > the ER studies." They are not. Time-series studies also use ER data,
> > and find no detectable helmet benefit.
>
> > Furthermore, he frequently says "all the experts agree" with him (or
> > something similar) when that too is a bald-faced lie. If all experts
> > agreed, there wouldn't be the controversy.
>
> > My library of data and papers on this issue is probably two feet
> > thick. Guy Chapman's library puts mine to shame (see
> >http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet). Steven M. Scharf,
> > by contrast, has demonstrated very little evidence of reading and very
> > little technical knowledge of this issue.
>
> What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical issue.
> It is a political issue. The people who understand That will prevail.
The people who are annoyed the most with the entire argument will
probably outlive the rest.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:33:05
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 24, 7:56 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
>
>
> In any case, the chance of getting the AHZ's to actually read all the
> studies is about nil. Myself and others have provided endless
> references, citations, studies etc.,
That is a bald-faced lie (and a poorly constructed sentence!).
Scroll back in this thread. Check the number of citations,
references, or data that SMS has provided.
In most threads of this type, the count is exactly zero. This time,
he's got one post that cited two studies - a near-record for him.
However, he's not capable of discussing them intelligently, nor
understanding the problems with those studies, nor providing a
realistic defense of them. I think I clearly explained the problem of
self-selection in case-control studies - but he doesn't register any
understanding.
Worse, he repeatedly mistakes the case-control studies as being "all
the ER studies." They are not. Time-series studies also use ER data,
and find no detectable helmet benefit.
Furthermore, he frequently says "all the experts agree" with him (or
something similar) when that too is a bald-faced lie. If all experts
agreed, there wouldn't be the controversy.
My library of data and papers on this issue is probably two feet
thick. Guy Chapman's library puts mine to shame (see
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet). Steven M. Scharf,
by contrast, has demonstrated very little evidence of reading and very
little technical knowledge of this issue.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:47:40
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 24, 7:56 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In any case, the chance of getting the AHZ's to actually read all the
>> studies is about nil. Myself and others have provided endless
>> references, citations, studies etc.,
>
> That is a bald-faced lie (and a poorly constructed sentence!).
>
> Scroll back in this thread. Check the number of citations,
> references, or data that SMS has provided.
>
> In most threads of this type, the count is exactly zero. This time,
> he's got one post that cited two studies - a near-record for him.
> However, he's not capable of discussing them intelligently, nor
> understanding the problems with those studies, nor providing a
> realistic defense of them. I think I clearly explained the problem of
> self-selection in case-control studies - but he doesn't register any
> understanding.
>
> Worse, he repeatedly mistakes the case-control studies as being "all
> the ER studies." They are not. Time-series studies also use ER data,
> and find no detectable helmet benefit.
>
> Furthermore, he frequently says "all the experts agree" with him (or
> something similar) when that too is a bald-faced lie. If all experts
> agreed, there wouldn't be the controversy.
>
> My library of data and papers on this issue is probably two feet
> thick. Guy Chapman's library puts mine to shame (see
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet). Steven M. Scharf,
> by contrast, has demonstrated very little evidence of reading and very
> little technical knowledge of this issue.
What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical issue.
It is a political issue. The people who understand That will prevail.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 10:13:21
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:47:40 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<M_Kzi.39$j23.33@trndny06 >:
>What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical issue.
>It is a political issue. The people who understand That will prevail.
We understand that just fine. And in Scharf's case it's more of a
religious issue than a political or scientific one, since he eschews
consideration of the evidence - even politicians look at evidence.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 20:20:16
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 8:51 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do with
> > stopping a helmet law, is there?
>
> No, but they think they did! While to most of us they come across as
> rather foolish on Usenet, each could have a totally different persona
> when live in front of policymakers, and they could actually be effective
> lobbyists when the anonymity of Usenet is stripped away.
:-) Anonymity of Usenet? That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who
goes only by SMS!
Of course, many of us know him as Steven M. Scharf, but he does try to
remain anonymous!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 20:15:19
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 7:37 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
>
> They may have been claiming that helmet laws
> result in reduced levels of cycling, even though no data is available
> that proves this.
That was spoken from a position of ignorance. An accurate version of
that statement is: there is no data proving this that Steven M.
Scharf knows about. However, there is plenty of such data, even
though he's unaware of it.
>
> This the approach that was successful in my club when the do-gooders
> tried to make helmets compulsory on all rides, rather than letting the
> ride leaders decide (eventually we could no longer obtain insurance
> without a helmet requirement and we were forced into requiring helmets
> on all rides).
There's a good chance that's another statement from ignorance. My
club's insurance does not require helmets. Granted, his club is in a
different state, and perhaps every insurance company licensed in his
state does require helmets, but it's rather unlikely. The League of
American Bicyclists' event insurance is available in every state,
AFAIK, and it does not require helmets.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 12:43:03
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <1188270919.144487.82730@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >,
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>There's a good chance that's another statement from ignorance. My
>club's insurance does not require helmets. Granted, his club is in a
>different state, and perhaps every insurance company licensed in his
>state does require helmets, but it's rather unlikely. The League of
>American Bicyclists' event insurance is available in every state,
>AFAIK, and it does not require helmets.
The "insurance requires it" line is common among control freaks
because it's credible, it's sometimes true, and because there's no way
of disproving it unless you're on the board of the organization making
the claim.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 13:32:24
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <1188270919.144487.82730@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's a good chance that's another statement from ignorance. My
>> club's insurance does not require helmets. Granted, his club is in a
>> different state, and perhaps every insurance company licensed in his
>> state does require helmets, but it's rather unlikely. The League of
>> American Bicyclists' event insurance is available in every state,
>> AFAIK, and it does not require helmets.
>
> The "insurance requires it" line is common among control freaks
> because it's credible, it's sometimes true, and because there's no way
> of disproving it unless you're on the board of the organization making
> the claim.
Hey, we fought the mandatory helmet requirement in my club for years,
and I was one of the ride leaders that said I would stop leading rides
if it was implemented. Eventually it came down to a choice of requiring
helmets or shutting the club down for lack of liability insurance. That
said, during the long arguments at club meetings over the issue, we
always took the personal freedom approach. Trying to deny that you're
better off hitting your head without a helmet than with a helmet is an
argument that none of us would have dreamed of bringing up, but our club
is mainly made up of engineering types that understand risk analysis.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 01:32:04
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 2:30 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:04:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> said in
> <fOmAi.5560$yv3.1687@trndny01>:
>
> >>>> Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
> >>>> information for the larger number of politicians who did not already
> >>>> know.
> >>>Dream On!
> >> Check Hansard for the United Kingdom parliament, 23 April 2004.
> >> Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, defeated.
> >And?
>
> You will discover that people advancing the kinds of arguments that
> Frank and I advance, were able to successfully prevent the passage
> of a helmet law.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
YAY! Proud of you all!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Now go the Fuck away.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 17:36:42
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:32:04 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
All the Ships at S" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > said in
<1188203524.109096.7860@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >:
>Now go the Fuck away.
Have you not discovered how to ignore threads in which you are not
interested?
Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
you, then.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 22:00:32
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:47:40 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in
> <M_Kzi.39$j23.33@trndny06>:
>
>>What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical issue.
>>It is a political issue. The people who understand That will prevail.
>
> We understand that just fine.
Doesn't sound like it.
> And in Scharf's case it's more of a
> religious issue than a political or scientific one, since he eschews
> consideration of the evidence - even politicians look at evidence.
And then do what they intended to do prior to that.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 23:33:45
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:00:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<4E1Ai.3172$ai3.2788@trndny03 >:
>>>What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical issue.
>>>It is a political issue. The people who understand That will prevail.
>> We understand that just fine.
>Doesn't sound like it.
Depends who you ask. If you ask Steven M Scharf, we don't
understand at all. If you ask the UK Government, who were recently
persuaded again not to pass a helmet law, thanks to a lot of work by
people advancing precisely the arguments Frank Krygowski and I
advance, then, well, perhaps we do.
>> And in Scharf's case it's more of a
>> religious issue than a political or scientific one, since he eschews
>> consideration of the evidence - even politicians look at evidence.
>And then do what they intended to do prior to that.
Ah, that's policy-based evidence making, that is:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Policy-based_evidence_making
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 00:13:47
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:00:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in
> <4E1Ai.3172$ai3.2788@trndny03>:
>
>>>>What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical
>>>>issue. It is a political issue. The people who understand That will
>>>>prevail.
>>> We understand that just fine.
>>Doesn't sound like it.
>
> Depends who you ask. If you ask Steven M Scharf, we don't
> understand at all. If you ask the UK Government, who were recently
> persuaded again not to pass a helmet law, thanks to a lot of work by
> people advancing precisely the arguments Frank Krygowski and I
> advance, then, well, perhaps we do.
What works for the UK won't work for the US.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 10:36 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:32:04 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
> All the Ships at S" <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> said in
> <1188203524.109096.7...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Now go the Fuck away.
>
> Have you not discovered how to ignore threads in which you are not
> interested?
>
> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
> you, then.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and they
want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real great Satan.
PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 21:41:41
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
All the Ships at S" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > said in
<1188243677.320880.94920@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com >:
>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
>> you, then.
>Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and they
>want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real great Satan.
Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
>Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
Yes, I'm British, but no I'm not... whoever that was.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 22:31:46
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
> All the Ships at S" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> said in
> <1188243677.320880.94920@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
>>> you, then.
>
>>Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and they
>>want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real great Satan.
>
> Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
> are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>
>>PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
>>Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
>
> Yes, I'm British,
Then eventually you WILL have helmets. Nanny wouldn't have it any other
way. And mandatory sun glasses and sun screen on days when the sun
shines. And classes on the save use of a bicycle. And a Licence to buy
one. And insurance. And road tax. And ...
Oh, you weren't involved in the Pedal-By were you?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 07:49:40
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:31:46 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<mhIAi.21$J65.18@trndny08 >:
>> Yes, I'm British,
>Then eventually you WILL have helmets. Nanny wouldn't have it any other
>way. And mandatory sun glasses and sun screen on days when the sun
>shines. And classes on the save use of a bicycle. And a Licence to buy
>one. And insurance. And road tax. And ...
So you say. That wasn't the impression our group got from its
meeting with the Department for Transport last week, though.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 16:57:52
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
>> All the Ships at S" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> said in
>> <1188243677.320880.94920@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
>>>> you, then.
>>
>>> Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and
>>> they want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real
>>> great Satan.
>>
>> Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
>> are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>>
>>> PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
>>> Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
>>
>> Yes, I'm British,
>
> Then eventually you WILL have helmets. Nanny wouldn't have it any
> other way. And mandatory sun glasses and sun screen on days when the
> sun shines. And classes on the save use of a bicycle. And a Licence
> to buy one. And insurance. And road tax. And ...
And pretty soon... No mention of Winston Churchill in textbooks.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 00:52:28
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
>>> All the Ships at S" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> said in
>>> <1188243677.320880.94920@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
>>>>> you, then.
>>>
>>>> Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and
>>>> they want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real
>>>> great Satan.
>>>
>>> Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
>>> are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>>>
>>>> PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
>>>> Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm British,
>>
>> Then eventually you WILL have helmets. Nanny wouldn't have it any
>> other way. And mandatory sun glasses and sun screen on days when the
>> sun shines. And classes on the save use of a bicycle. And a Licence
>> to buy one. And insurance. And road tax. And ...
>
> And pretty soon... No mention of Winston Churchill in textbooks.
>
>
>
I went to his funeral. Astonishing crowd. Even bigger than the "Ban the
Bomb - Yanks Out!" rally Easter weekend 1962.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 22:55:40
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 24, 5:04 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
>
>
> There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
> knows not of what they speak:
The "key ways" World's Greatest Expert Steven M. Scharf (SMS) mentions
are merely his usual pontificating, based only on his ill-informed
opinions.
The _real_ way to recognize ignorance in _any_ debate is this: The
person never uses data, citations, numbers, references, or anything
other than his own ill-informed opinion.
That ignorance is particularly obnoxious when that person proclaims
everyone else's data, citations, numbers, references, etc. to be
worthless, based only on his ill-informed opinion.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 12:19:01
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 24, 7:00 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 23, 3:03 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
>
>
>
>
>
> <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 7:52 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Helmet skeptics
> > > do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
> > > use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
> > > that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
> > > subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
> > > studies that helmet proponents most rely on.
>
> > > Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
> > > personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
> > > control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
> > > determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
> > > intervention.
>
> > > Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
> > > proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
> > > person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
> > > results.
>
> > > The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
> > > replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
> > > because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
> > > less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.
>
> > > But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
> > > ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
> > > causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
> > > Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
> > > conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
> > > attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
> > > exercise. Probably more bike riding!
>
> > WTF made you a doctor AND a shrink?
>
> A person doesn't have to be a doctor to read and understand scientific
> papers detailing errors in studies. A person has to understand
> mathematics and be reasonably intelligent.
>
> >What does gynecological science have to do with helmets?
>
> Hormone replacement therapy isn't generally considered gynecological.
> It's a general health issue for women.
>
> Learn before you post.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
I learned long ago that idiots dance instead of peeing. It has nothing
to do with this thread either.
Quit shaming the other cyclists with this troll sex post.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 13:00:04
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 23, 3:03 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
<thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 7:52 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Helmet skeptics
> > do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
> > use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
> > that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
> > subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
> > studies that helmet proponents most rely on.
>
> > Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
> > personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
> > control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
> > determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
> > intervention.
>
> > Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
> > proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
> > person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
> > results.
>
> > The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
> > replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
> > because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
> > less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.
>
> > But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
> > ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
> > causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
> > Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
> > conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
> > attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
> > exercise. Probably more bike riding!
>
> WTF made you a doctor AND a shrink?
A person doesn't have to be a doctor to read and understand scientific
papers detailing errors in studies. A person has to understand
mathematics and be reasonably intelligent.
>What does gynecological science have to do with helmets?
Hormone replacement therapy isn't generally considered gynecological.
It's a general health issue for women.
Learn before you post.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 12:03:38
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 23, 7:52 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:31 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
> > not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak.
>
> ;-) Steven M. Scharf (SMS) is free to give his opinion regarding the
> strength of a particular arguments, but he should at least detail
> some justification for his opinion. Those of us who know his Usenet
> history don't accept his self-proclaimed expertise on anything other
> than coffee!
>
> But let's clear up a mistake in his sentence above. Helmet skeptics
> do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
> use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
> that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
> subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
> studies that helmet proponents most rely on.
>
> Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
> personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
> control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
> determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
> intervention.
>
> Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
> proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
> person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
> results.
>
> The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
> replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
> because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
> less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.
>
> But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
> ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
> causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
> Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
> conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
> attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
> exercise. Probably more bike riding!
WTF made you a doctor AND a shrink? What does gynecological science
have to do with helmets? Why do youharp on people nobody knows in four
other groups==trollduggery?
How do we know you aren't a gay child molester, arsonist impersonating
a priest and prostate impaired bedwetting Nazi?
Fair enough? You're not going to get anywhere arguing like this ever,
not for two minutes or ETERNITY. You don't know HOW to argue, only
whine and if your children do this to they should be banned from ever
voting or making a conscious thought.
People will die if they damn good and want to. Stop being some pussy
Socialist--take care of YOURSELF before you take care of others or
they will see the difference.
Move out of the city while you're at it, it makes you confuse one head
for another.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 11:53:18
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: About damned time you fruitcakes clam up
|
On Aug 23, 7:01 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
Who cares. If you want to gain friends and allies, DON'T SIT AND ARGUE
AND ADMONISH.
Keep your ass out of any voting booths until you figure it out.
AND SHUT UP!
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 13:52:29
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 23, 2:31 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
> not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak.
;-) Steven M. Scharf (SMS) is free to give his opinion regarding the
strength of a particular arguments, but he should at least detail
some justification for his opinion. Those of us who know his Usenet
history don't accept his self-proclaimed expertise on anything other
than coffee!
But let's clear up a mistake in his sentence above. Helmet skeptics
do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
studies that helmet proponents most rely on.
Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
intervention.
Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
results.
The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.
But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
exercise. Probably more bike riding!
Doctors now understand how the early information was distorted. They
have largely given up prescribing HRT as a result of this.
With helmets, the situation is exactly analogous, except that the very
earliest adopters - those persuaded to wear helmets by Seattle's
hospitals in 1989 - were "captured" as data points by the infamous
Thompson & Rivara study of "85%!!!" fame. And despite ample large
population studies showing no benefit, people are still being fed that
erroneous "85%" figure, one which as never ever been confirmed
anywhere else.
>
> Please, AHZ's, stay away from public hearings and don't write letters to
> newspapers with your ideas about walking helmets, cancer, and driving
> helmets, and don't try to attack ER statistics with stories about income
> levels or risk-compensation. You don't believe them yourself, and you're
> not smart enough to convince doctors, lawyers, and other politicians.
For those who are unfamiliar with SMS's advice: As far as we know, he
has never written to newspapers, convinced doctors, lawyers or
politicians. He simply makes pronouncements of his judgment on
Usenet.
Others posting here have, indeed, done the things he advises against,
and done them to successfully fight mandatory helmet laws. It seems
that there are doctors, lawyers and politicians that can be convinced
by real data. Not all of them, of course; but hopefully, that will
improve with time.
SMS should be free to use whatever arguments he likes. But he should
not condemn others' choice of argument. His judgment is not better
than others.
> What is true is that bicycle accidents involving head injuries are
> relatively rare, so helmet laws are unnecessary and invasive public
> policy, especially for adults, but even for children.
At least he's got that right.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 13:01:53
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 22, 11:25 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A time series study, by its nature, does not require comparing two
> > groups at the same time. Effectively, the control group is the
> > population of cyclists before the massive use of helmets. That group
> > is compared with the population of cyclists after the massive use of
> > helmets began.
>
> CLUE: There is no "massive" use of helmets. Except, perhaps, among children
> in those jurisdictions where helmet use is mandated for children.
I'm sorry that you've lost track of our conversation. I was
discussing a particular scientific paper, published in a refereed
journal, examining the effect of a surge in helmet use in a certain
country. That country had 90% of its child cyclists wearing helmets,
due to intense promotion just before a MHL.
Read back in the thread so you understand what we're talking about.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 22:22:42
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: If this is all you do, how do you reproduce?
|
Fergie thinks none of you guys actually get laid much
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 22:19:37
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 22, 10:41 pm, cattan...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <1187765395.886980.43...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, cattan...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Yes but sometimes they keep the whole lane at times when it puts
> > > themselves and other motorists at risk when the drivers try to pass
> > > them. Occasionally people really do need to loosen their helmets a
> > > little and understand that they sometimes need to yield a few feet to
> > > the drivers so they can pass them safely.
>
> > If I am taking the lane it is because the pass cannot be made safely, the
> > pavement is poor, and/or I am going as fast as traffic in front of me
> > and/or to my left.
>
> OK, sounds fine and I totally agree. I wasn't talking about city and
> urban riding. I was talking about narrow country and mountain roads
> riding.
>
> I should have made that clear.
>
> > > I find myself to be a mobile pedestrian. I ride both sidewalks and
> > > streets, will cut through this or that.
> > > I generally don't stop for stop signs and traffic signals. Sometimes I
> > > do have to assimilate and be part of the traffic and not a pedestrian,
> > > usually at busy 4-way stops.
>
> > Dangerous and illegal style of riding.
>
> I've rode for well over 20 years and I've probably annoyed maybe 10
> people the entire time. I ride very safe and I am very courteous and
> conscientious of pedestrians, drivers and other cyclists.
>
> I always give at least somebody a friendly smile.
>
> I may roll through a stop sign or whatever but I'm not riding as a
> vehicle. I'm not the guy with the bicycle helmet along with the cars
> waiting for the light to change.
>
> I generally only ride that way when I have to, like when it's safer
> than riding on the side or when it's the dreaded thorn season. I will
> use hand signals. Yes when I'm actively riding within traffic I can
> and have to follow the rules, or I will might plowed over.
>
> I am not a burden to anybody riding on or off the road. I take
> opportunities for locomotion and it works quite well. When I have to
> ride like you do I do just that.
>
> > > I've rode side by side with bicycle cops going through traffic signals
> > > and the like. For some it may not be feasible to follow every traffic
> > > law. I don't know, I just never have.
>
> > And they say that cops driving/riding illegally is just fine...
>
> Driving isn't. I am very against cops doing illegal stuff cause they
> are cops.
>
> I seriously considered complaining about a cop who's driving habits
> were deliberately very reckless.
>
> He killed a pedestrian driving that way as i feared he would do.
> Others filed complaints, maybe mine would have saved the mans life.
>
> Not the first time and probably not the last
>
> Riding on sidewalks is not illegal out here and bicycle cops who roll
> through a stop sign bothers me none if they are actively doing
> something police related. Which seems to always be the case when you
> see them moments later setting crack and crack pipes on the ground and
> placing the people who
> make life a little less than it could be for others in handcuffs.
>
> > I stop then I repass the cop after the light turns green.
>
> I don't have a ten speed and traffic generally, well drivers don't
> follow, well the speed limit signs are just a minimum suggestion for
> most areas at this point in time.
>
> People used to follow the speed limits and drive cautiously but no
> longer. I will ride 'legally' in places where I can safely ride and I
> very much enjoy riding as you do. I know places where I can ride that
> way but we do have nice wide sidewalks everywhere and few pedestrians
> where they are few.
>
> > >> As a pedestrian, I detest sidewalk riders.
>
> > > Riders here generally have respect for pedestrians.
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> Yes no maybe. Do you have general respect for pedestrians? Well there
> are many like you.
>
> > > Around where I'm from police ride sidewalks and stress that they
> > > encourage sidewalk riding if people don't feel comfortable riding the
> > > streets but they also stress that if you annoy pedestrians that you
> > > could get a ticket.
>
> > Cops are about the poorest source of information on bicycling there is.
>
> However the simple question was asked by people to our media to our
> police department. Was it
> legal to ride on the sidewalks and cops were nice enough to answer so
> it was very clear. Yes
> you can as long as you don't annoy the pedestrians in any form.
>
> You know if pedestrians are present ring you bell to let them know
> your there or it's like trail riding, 'passing on your left.' Don't
> surprise people or ride to close.
>
> > Most of the ones I've encountered have their own made up ideas of what
> > the law is.
>
> If you ride as vehicles do cops will see violations. Whether they are
> right or not is a different question.
>
> > > That's what it's about, peoples riding should never annoy or
> > > inconvenience others to any markable level.
>
> > I am not going to ride sidewalks, jump curbs, and otherwise endanger
> > myself because some asshats driving cars don't understand nor follow the
> > vehicle code. Just because they are upset that they can't kiss up to the
> > rear bumper of the car in front of me or are too lazy to change lanes or
> > the other typical needs of driving in traffic are not reasons I should
> > have to ride in the dangerous manner you perscribe. (Look at the bicycle
> > crash types manual, you'll find ride-outs are the best way to get hit by
> > a car)
>
> I ride sidewalks and roads and this and that. Thats how I ride and I
> love doing it, if you want to be a purist street rider I could care
> less or better yet more power to ya. I never put myself in reckless
> riding situations and have never stated so.
>
> > > I live in a very hustle and bustle part of town and riding the streets
> > > and stopping for stop signs and traffic lights isn't really possible.
> > > You 'have' to ride sidewalks most of the time, it's just that simple..
>
> > No, it's your lack of skill.
>
> No offendi but how the fuck do you know what my skill is. I've have
> aggressively but safely rode bikes for over 25 years with very few
> times meeting the dirt, pavement or making bad moves.
>
> Every BMX race I have been in I've never got less than 3rd place. I am
> a very prolific nighttime rider.
>
> I'm not fast enough in most places and it's more convenient and safe
> for me to ride the way I ride. It's very fun too. It even improves my
> skills and dexterity.
>
> I can ride 5 miles I can ride 20 miles I can ride 50 miles. I will
> ride morning to well after midnight and feel the burn and love it.
>
> > I've ridden through chicago's Loop and other
> > areas of staggering traffic volumes without difficulty and done so to the
> > letter of the vehicle code.
>
> Yes I know quite well how to ride and ride legally and ride in 'high
> traffic'. I used to chase and ride with bicycle messengers as a
> pastime. You may be able to do this in the area but I don't really
> know.
> (laughing)
>
> It's not the amounts of cars it's like the floodgates opening with
> people that are trying to move from here to there as fast as they
> possibly can.
>
> The only thing that slows them down is the car in front of them. It's
> dangerous and there are
> accidents often.
>
> It's not uncommon to have an accident nearly every morning and
> afternoon of a week. Or multiple
> accidents in different areas at any given time.
>
> Basically it's like, whoever got in an accident yesterday.
>
> You should see when older people and even just average people who
> aren't used to driving there get caught driving in this mix, fear on
> their faces. I know people who won't even drive there. If you aren't
> in a car the sidewalk is there for you, and then you have streets you
> have to crosst.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:41:59
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <1187765395.886980.43690@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, cattanack@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Yes but sometimes they keep the whole lane at times when it puts
> > themselves and other motorists at risk when the drivers try to pass
> > them. Occasionally people really do need to loosen their helmets a
> > little and understand that they sometimes need to yield a few feet to
> > the drivers so they can pass them safely.
>
> If I am taking the lane it is because the pass cannot be made safely, the
> pavement is poor, and/or I am going as fast as traffic in front of me
> and/or to my left.
OK, sounds fine and I totally agree. I wasn't talking about city and
urban riding. I was talking about narrow country and mountain roads
riding.
I should have made that clear.
> > I find myself to be a mobile pedestrian. I ride both sidewalks and
> > streets, will cut through this or that.
> > I generally don't stop for stop signs and traffic signals. Sometimes I
> > do have to assimilate and be part of the traffic and not a pedestrian,
> > usually at busy 4-way stops.
>
> Dangerous and illegal style of riding.
I've rode for well over 20 years and I've probably annoyed maybe 10
people the entire time. I ride very safe and I am very courteous and
conscientious of pedestrians, drivers and other cyclists.
I always give at least somebody a friendly smile.
I may roll through a stop sign or whatever but I'm not riding as a
vehicle. I'm not the guy with the bicycle helmet along with the cars
waiting for the light to change.
I generally only ride that way when I have to, like when it's safer
than riding on the side or when it's the dreaded thorn season. I will
use hand signals. Yes when I'm actively riding within traffic I can
and have to follow the rules, or I will might plowed over.
I am not a burden to anybody riding on or off the road. I take
opportunities for locomotion and it works quite well. When I have to
ride like you do I do just that.
> > I've rode side by side with bicycle cops going through traffic signals
> > and the like. For some it may not be feasible to follow every traffic
> > law. I don't know, I just never have.
>
> And they say that cops driving/riding illegally is just fine...
Driving isn't. I am very against cops doing illegal stuff cause they
are cops.
I seriously considered complaining about a cop who's driving habits
were deliberately very reckless.
He killed a pedestrian driving that way as i feared he would do.
Others filed complaints, maybe mine would have saved the mans life.
Not the first time and probably not the last
Riding on sidewalks is not illegal out here and bicycle cops who roll
through a stop sign bothers me none if they are actively doing
something police related. Which seems to always be the case when you
see them moments later setting crack and crack pipes on the ground and
placing the people who
make life a little less than it could be for others in handcuffs.
> I stop then I repass the cop after the light turns green.
I don't have a ten speed and traffic generally, well drivers don't
follow, well the speed limit signs are just a minimum suggestion for
most areas at this point in time.
People used to follow the speed limits and drive cautiously but no
longer. I will ride 'legally' in places where I can safely ride and I
very much enjoy riding as you do. I know places where I can ride that
way but we do have nice wide sidewalks everywhere and few pedestrians
where they are few.
> >> As a pedestrian, I detest sidewalk riders.
> >
> > Riders here generally have respect for pedestrians.
>
> Bullshit.
Yes no maybe. Do you have general respect for pedestrians? Well there
are many like you.
> > Around where I'm from police ride sidewalks and stress that they
> > encourage sidewalk riding if people don't feel comfortable riding the
> > streets but they also stress that if you annoy pedestrians that you
> > could get a ticket.
>
> Cops are about the poorest source of information on bicycling there is.
However the simple question was asked by people to our media to our
police department. Was it
legal to ride on the sidewalks and cops were nice enough to answer so
it was very clear. Yes
you can as long as you don't annoy the pedestrians in any form.
You know if pedestrians are present ring you bell to let them know
your there or it's like trail riding, 'passing on your left.' Don't
surprise people or ride to close.
> Most of the ones I've encountered have their own made up ideas of what
> the law is.
If you ride as vehicles do cops will see violations. Whether they are
right or not is a different question.
> > That's what it's about, peoples riding should never annoy or
> > inconvenience others to any markable level.
>
> I am not going to ride sidewalks, jump curbs, and otherwise endanger
> myself because some asshats driving cars don't understand nor follow the
> vehicle code. Just because they are upset that they can't kiss up to the
> rear bumper of the car in front of me or are too lazy to change lanes or
> the other typical needs of driving in traffic are not reasons I should
> have to ride in the dangerous manner you perscribe. (Look at the bicycle
> crash types manual, you'll find ride-outs are the best way to get hit by
> a car)
I ride sidewalks and roads and this and that. Thats how I ride and I
love doing it, if you want to be a purist street rider I could care
less or better yet more power to ya. I never put myself in reckless
riding situations and have never stated so.
> > I live in a very hustle and bustle part of town and riding the streets
> > and stopping for stop signs and traffic lights isn't really possible.
> > You 'have' to ride sidewalks most of the time, it's just that simple..
>
> No, it's your lack of skill.
No offendi but how the fuck do you know what my skill is. I've have
aggressively but safely rode bikes for over 25 years with very few
times meeting the dirt, pavement or making bad moves.
Every BMX race I have been in I've never got less than 3rd place. I am
a very prolific nighttime rider.
I'm not fast enough in most places and it's more convenient and safe
for me to ride the way I ride. It's very fun too. It even improves my
skills and dexterity.
I can ride 5 miles I can ride 20 miles I can ride 50 miles. I will
ride morning to well after midnight and feel the burn and love it.
> I've ridden through chicago's Loop and other
> areas of staggering traffic volumes without difficulty and done so to the
> letter of the vehicle code.
Yes I know quite well how to ride and ride legally and ride in 'high
traffic'. I used to chase and ride with bicycle messengers as a
pastime. You may be able to do this in the area but I don't really
know.
(laughing)
It's not the amounts of cars it's like the floodgates opening with
people that are trying to move from here to there as fast as they
possibly can.
The only thing that slows them down is the car in front of them. It's
dangerous and there are
accidents often.
It's not uncommon to have an accident nearly every morning and
afternoon of a week. Or multiple
accidents in different areas at any given time.
Basically it's like, whoever got in an accident yesterday.
You should see when older people and even just average people who
aren't used to driving there get caught driving in this mix, fear on
their faces. I know people who won't even drive there. If you aren't
in a car the sidewalk is there for you, and then you have streets you
have to crosst.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 00:42:06
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <1187844119.894808.259130@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com >, cattanack@yahoo.com wrote:
> OK, sounds fine and I totally agree. I wasn't talking about city and
> urban riding. I was talking about narrow country and mountain roads
> riding.
the IL vehicle code actually specifically mentions that it is acceptable
to take the lane when the lane is of substandard width.
>> Dangerous and illegal style of riding.
> I've rode for well over 20 years and I've probably annoyed maybe 10
> people the entire time. I ride very safe and I am very courteous and
> conscientious of pedestrians, drivers and other cyclists.
Sure.... whatever. You ride a bicycle like a child riding a toy. Hell 5
decades ago children were taught to ride better. goggle up 'drive your
bike'.
>> And they say that cops driving/riding illegally is just fine...
> Driving isn't. I am very against cops doing illegal stuff cause they
> are cops.
You just posted monkey-see, monkey-do justification. If you can run red
lights because the bicycle cop does, why can't a driver drive through a
red light because the cop does it with his police cruiser?
>> I stop then I repass the cop after the light turns green.
> I don't have a ten speed and traffic generally, well drivers don't
> follow, well the speed limit signs are just a minimum suggestion for
> most areas at this point in time.
10 speed? Did I just slide back into 1982? The kind of bicycle you have
doesn't change the rules of the road.
> People used to follow the speed limits and drive cautiously but no
> longer. I will ride 'legally' in places where I can safely ride and I
> very much enjoy riding as you do. I know places where I can ride that
> way but we do have nice wide sidewalks everywhere and few pedestrians
> where they are few.
Google up the crash type manual for bicycles....
>> > Riders here generally have respect for pedestrians.
>> Bullshit.
> Yes no maybe. Do you have general respect for pedestrians? Well there
> are many like you.
I have respect for them by not riding on the sidewalk. I have been forced
to walk on the grass, into puddles, etc because of someone riding on the
sidewalk where they shouldnt have been in the first place.
>> Cops are about the poorest source of information on bicycling there is.
> However the simple question was asked by people to our media to our
> police department. Was it
> legal to ride on the sidewalks and cops were nice enough to answer so
> it was very clear. Yes
> you can as long as you don't annoy the pedestrians in any form.
It might be best for you to look that up. In some parts of Chicago that
will get you a $250 ticket.
> You know if pedestrians are present ring you bell to let them know
> your there or it's like trail riding, 'passing on your left.' Don't
> surprise people or ride to close.
I don't need to bother because I ride on the road where vehicles belong.
>> Most of the ones I've encountered have their own made up ideas of what
>> the law is.
> If you ride as vehicles do cops will see violations. Whether they are
> right or not is a different question.
You're not immune to tickets just because you decide to ride like a child
on a toy.
>> > That's what it's about, peoples riding should never annoy or
>> > inconvenience others to any markable level.
>> I am not going to ride sidewalks, jump curbs, and otherwise endanger
>> myself because some asshats driving cars don't understand nor follow the
>> vehicle code. Just because they are upset that they can't kiss up to the
>> rear bumper of the car in front of me or are too lazy to change lanes or
>> the other typical needs of driving in traffic are not reasons I should
>> have to ride in the dangerous manner you perscribe. (Look at the bicycle
>> crash types manual, you'll find ride-outs are the best way to get hit by
>> a car)
> I ride sidewalks and roads and this and that. Thats how I ride and I
> love doing it, if you want to be a purist street rider I could care
> less or better yet more power to ya. I never put myself in reckless
> riding situations and have never stated so.
It doesn't change the fact that what you do is dangerous and annoying to
both those who walk and those who drive. Probably those who bike too.
>> > I live in a very hustle and bustle part of town and riding the streets
>> > and stopping for stop signs and traffic lights isn't really possible.
>> > You 'have' to ride sidewalks most of the time, it's just that simple..
>> No, it's your lack of skill.
> No offendi but how the fuck do you know what my skill is. I've have
> aggressively but safely rode bikes for over 25 years with very few
> times meeting the dirt, pavement or making bad moves.
How do I know what the fuck your skill is? Because you just described
your skill. You're affraid of traffic so you ride in the margins like a
child on a toy.
> Every BMX race I have been in I've never got less than 3rd place. I am
> a very prolific nighttime rider.
'skill' being skill in traffic, not jumping a mound of dirt.
> I'm not fast enough in most places and it's more convenient and safe
> for me to ride the way I ride. It's very fun too. It even improves my
> skills and dexterity.
Until you get hit doing a ride out.
>> I've ridden through chicago's Loop and other
>> areas of staggering traffic volumes without difficulty and done so to the
>> letter of the vehicle code.
> Yes I know quite well how to ride and ride legally and ride in 'high
> traffic'. I used to chase and ride with bicycle messengers as a
> pastime. You may be able to do this in the area but I don't really
> know.
> (laughing)
You point to an even more dangerous and illegal class of riders as if
that justifies your behavior.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 20:32:58
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 22, 8:07 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > ...
> > I am not going to ride sidewalks, jump curbs, and otherwise endanger
> > myself because some asshats driving cars don't understand nor follow the
> > vehicle code. Just because they are upset that they can't kiss up to the
> > rear bumper of the car in front of me...
>
> Why the fock don't cops ever issue tickets for tailgating?
>
> Barring that, can we equip vehicles with rear mounted cannons that
> automatically fire at tailgaiters?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Yes if you wish to burn in their wake.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 02:16:17
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 22, 12:29 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 7:07 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > That's where you're going astray. You say "Perhaps no study can show
> > definitively that they do." If that's the case, why on earth promote
> > them? It would make exactly as much sense to strongly promote four
> > leaf clovers or St. Christopher medals!
>
> Because there is no reasonable causal connection between four leaf
> clovers and head injuries. Surrounding the affected organ with a
> crushable cover has, at least in theory, some value.
One thing I've learned in these discussions is that people's
definition of "reasonable" varies greatly! Many people are quite
willing to reject all data and go instead with their gut feeling, if
the data conflicts with their gut feeling - and they think that's
"reasonable."
Of course, science doesn't work that way.
>
>
> > Let's discuss another study: Scuffham, P.A., et. al., "Trends in
> > Cycle Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use," Accident
> > Analysis & Prevention, Vol 29, No. 1, pp. 1-9, 1997.
>
> And that study is just as fatally flawed as all of the others because it
> does not have a proper control group and cannot tease out confounding
> variables.
Your remark is a good example of what I just said.
A time series study, by its nature, does not require comparing two
groups at the same time. Effectively, the control group is the
population of cyclists before the massive use of helmets. That group
is compared with the population of cyclists after the massive use of
helmets began.
There's a grain of truth in your implication that confounding
variables may have some effect on results; but it's a mere grain of
truth, nothing more. Here's why:
The adoption of helmets in New Zealand was a near "step change" in one
condition. Helmet use roughly tripled (to 90% for kids) within about
two years. If a confounding variable (say, increased motor vehicle
traffic) caused an increase in danger that precisely wiped out the
supposed protective effect of helmets, that variable would have to
come into effect at precisely the same time and rate that helmets
did. Any gradual confounding variable would not erase the helmet
effect so precisely.
And, worse for your argument, if something (like increased car
traffic) did increase danger, it would have to be something that
increased danger specifically to the cyclists heads! Anything that
affected other parts of the body as well as the head doesn't change
the percentage hospitalized for head injuries.
Such a confounding variable would need to be very, very unusual. If
such a variable did exist, it should be easily identifiable. Yet none
has even been seriously proposed. That's because there isn't one.
There are only people saying "That study can't be any good because ...
because... well, I'll come up with something, because I just don't
believe it."
> What if -
> Increased helmet availability increases the likelihood that
> inexperienced riders will get on the bike (and subsequently suffer a
> worse accident than a seasoned rider)?
First, why would intense helmet promotion cause _anyone_ new to get on
a bike? "Gosh, I never wanted to bike before; but now that they're
telling me it's so dangerous that I must wear a helmet, I think I'll
take it up!" No way. Helmet promotion does make some people give up
riding, but it's not going to cause newbies to jump on bikes.
And even if that were to somehow happen, it still won't move the data
in the direction your argument needs. Newbies would still be more
likely to break other body parts than to seriously injure their heads,
just as all cyclists are. (Despite propaganda, most cyclists who
visit ERs and most cyclists admitted to hospitals are not there
because of serious brain injury.)
> Increased helmet use increases risky behavior? This effect is even
> mentioned by name on the web site YOU provided.
Again, you're fishing. You need something that will cause more
serious head injuries, but not more "other" serious injuries. You
need the _percentage_ with serious head injuries to somehow exactly
wipe out the supposed gain from helmets. If people felt protected and
rode in riskier ways (which would be likely), they would be expected
to get more broken hips, ruptured spleens, fractured clavicles, etc,
not just more serious concussions.
> You don't have to rebut these individually.
Oh, no problem! It's trivially easy to do.
> They merely illustrate the
> point that these studies may or may not measure the effect they mean to
> describe. Meanwhile, it is trivial to find evidence of the fact that in
> controlled laboratory experiments, helmets offer some level of
> protection to the enclosed head.
Yes, and as one poster has mentioned, so does his wooly knit cap offer
"some level of protection."
Do you understand what the level of protection of a helmet is
certified to be? Have you actually read and understood the
certification tests? Your "some level of protection" is extremely
small, as indicated by the certification tests - which I'll be happy
to discuss in detail.
BTW, that level of protection is also stated to be small by the
sticker that the manufacturer's lawyers had installed on the inside.
Read it!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 03:25:58
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> A time series study, by its nature, does not require comparing two
> groups at the same time. Effectively, the control group is the
> population of cyclists before the massive use of helmets. That group
> is compared with the population of cyclists after the massive use of
> helmets began.
CLUE: There is no "massive" use of helmets. Except, perhaps, among children
in those jurisdictions where helmet use is mandated for children.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 07:42:56
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> A time series study, by its nature, does not require comparing two
>> groups at the same time. Effectively, the control group is the
>> population of cyclists before the massive use of helmets. That group
>> is compared with the population of cyclists after the massive use of
>> helmets began.
>
> CLUE: There is no "massive" use of helmets. Except, perhaps, among children
> in those jurisdictions where helmet use is mandated for children.
I don't know where you are, but in my area helmet use is definitely
massive, for both children and adults. I'm definitely in the minority
when I ride without a helmet.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 00:15:14
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> A time series study, by its nature, does not require comparing two
>>> groups at the same time. Effectively, the control group is the
>>> population of cyclists before the massive use of helmets. That
>>> group is compared with the population of cyclists after the massive
>>> use of helmets began.
>>
>> CLUE: There is no "massive" use of helmets. Except, perhaps, among
>> children in those jurisdictions where helmet use is mandated for
>> children.
>
> I don't know where you are, but in my area helmet use is definitely
> massive, for both children and adults. I'm definitely in the minority
> when I ride without a helmet.
>
Beaverton, Oregon. A burb of Portland.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 08:20:32
From: lein
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
On Aug 20, 6:33 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@innvalid.com > wrote:
> lein aka Boomer the Cat aka WHO? wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 4:03 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
> >> lein wrote:
> >>> On Aug 19, 6:34 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 19, 6:28 pm, "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Bicycle helmets scrub off some of the acceleration your brain undergoes when
> >>>>> your head hits something. That's all anyone ever claimed.
> >>>> Baloney. Helmet promoters claim that helmets are wonderfully
> >>>> effective ("85%!!!"). They claim that bike helmets save lots of
> >>>> lives, and are very protective against debilitating brain injury.
> >>>> They claim that unhelmeted cyclists are a great source of organs
> >>>> harvested for transplants. They forced bike racers to wear helmets,
> >>>> then they claim that since bike racers wear helmets, that ordinary
> >>>> riders should.
> >>>> And they claim that bicycling is so terribly dangerous that nobody
> >>>> should ever ride a bicycle anywhere without a helmet.
> >>>> All their claims, especially the last, are dishonest and false.
> >>> Too bad they don't pass a law requiring all bicycle riders to wear
> >>> motorcycle helmets.
> >> A cyclist riding hard in summer in a full face helmet would likely
> >> suffer heat stroke, possibly fatal.
>
> > Don't wear a full face, get one of those WWI German helmets with the
> > spike on top.
>
> Like this:
> <http://www.buymotorcyclehelmets.com/assets/images/products/flatblacks...>?
>
that works
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 23:49:55
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Arif Khokar wrote:
> cattanack@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
>
> >> You got crowded BECAUSE you rode too far right. If you ride far right,
> >> you are encourgaging them to squeeze by. Use more of the lane and that
> >> problem is greatly reduced. Riding further into the lane makes you more
> >> visible, and forces motorists to adjust to you.
>
> > I believe that making motorists adjust 'to your riding habits' means
> > you are doing it wrong.
>
> As a driver, I see nothing wrong with treating a cyclist who is
> following the rules of the road like another car. I also see nothing
> wrong with giving them the whole lane when I pass them. I expect the
> same when I'm riding.
Yes but sometimes they keep the whole lane at times when it puts
themselves and other motorists at risk when the drivers try to pass
them. Occasionally people really do need to loosen their helmets a
little and understand that they sometimes need to yield a few feet to
the drivers so they can pass them safely.
I agree with you though.
> I do see something wrong with riders who don't follow the rules of the
> road.
I find myself to be a mobile pedestrian. I ride both sidewalks and
streets, will cut through this or that.
I generally don't stop for stop signs and traffic signals. Sometimes I
do have to assimilate and be part of the traffic and not a pedestrian,
usually at busy 4-way stops.
I've rode side by side with bicycle cops going through traffic signals
and the like. For some it may not be feasible to follow every traffic
law. I don't know, I just never have.
> As a pedestrian, I detest sidewalk riders.
Riders here generally have respect for pedestrians.
Around where I'm from police ride sidewalks and stress that they
encourage sidewalk riding if people don't feel comfortable riding the
streets but they also stress that if you annoy pedestrians that you
could get a ticket.
That's what it's about, peoples riding should never annoy or
inconvenience others to any markable level.
I live in a very hustle and bustle part of town and riding the streets
and stopping for stop signs and traffic lights isn't really possible.
You 'have' to ride sidewalks most of the time, it's just that simple..
Traffic signals that say walk are totally ineffective most of the time
of the morning noon and into the night.
I see total panic on pedestrians faces who are trying to cross the
street.
I try to the best of my ability to teach people how to cross without
getting stuck in the middle of an ungodly amount of non-stop highly
menacing traffic.
I use my 'OK lets go' and, you people are gonna wait 5, 10, 15 fucking
seconds, whatever it takes so this scared lady can get across the
fucking street!!
The traffic signals are programmed to do one thing, move far more
traffic than the roads were designed for and they do quite well at the
expense of pedestrian safety, both mobile and on foot.
>I hate having to deal with cyclists who seemingly pop out of nowhere because
> they couldn't be troubled to follow the rules of the road.
It's not fair to the drivers that's for sure.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 07:55:57
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <1187765395.886980.43690@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, cattanack@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yes but sometimes they keep the whole lane at times when it puts
> themselves and other motorists at risk when the drivers try to pass
> them. Occasionally people really do need to loosen their helmets a
> little and understand that they sometimes need to yield a few feet to
> the drivers so they can pass them safely.
If I am taking the lane it is because the pass cannot be made safely, the
pavement is poor, and/or I am going as fast as traffic in front of me
and/or to my left.
> I find myself to be a mobile pedestrian. I ride both sidewalks and
> streets, will cut through this or that.
> I generally don't stop for stop signs and traffic signals. Sometimes I
> do have to assimilate and be part of the traffic and not a pedestrian,
> usually at busy 4-way stops.
Dangerous and illegal style of riding.
> I've rode side by side with bicycle cops going through traffic signals
> and the like. For some it may not be feasible to follow every traffic
> law. I don't know, I just never have.
And they say that cops driving/riding illegally is just fine... I stop
then I repass the cop after the light turns green.
>> As a pedestrian, I detest sidewalk riders.
>
> Riders here generally have respect for pedestrians.
Bullshit.
> Around where I'm from police ride sidewalks and stress that they
> encourage sidewalk riding if people don't feel comfortable riding the
> streets but they also stress that if you annoy pedestrians that you
> could get a ticket.
Cops are about the poorest source of information on bicycling there is.
Most of the ones I've encountered have their own made up ideas of what
the law is.
> That's what it's about, peoples riding should never annoy or
> inconvenience others to any markable level.
I am not going to ride sidewalks, jump curbs, and otherwise endanger
myself because some asshats driving cars don't understand nor follow the
vehicle code. Just because they are upset that they can't kiss up to the
rear bumper of the car in front of me or are too lazy to change lanes or
the other typical needs of driving in traffic are not reasons I should
have to ride in the dangerous manner you perscribe. (Look at the bicycle
crash types manual, you'll find ride-outs are the best way to get hit by
a car)
> I live in a very hustle and bustle part of town and riding the streets
> and stopping for stop signs and traffic lights isn't really possible.
> You 'have' to ride sidewalks most of the time, it's just that simple..
No, it's your lack of skill. I've ridden through chicago's Loop and other
areas of staggering traffic volumes without difficulty and done so to the
letter of the vehicle code.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:07:21
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> ...
> I am not going to ride sidewalks, jump curbs, and otherwise endanger
> myself because some asshats driving cars don't understand nor follow the
> vehicle code. Just because they are upset that they can't kiss up to the
> rear bumper of the car in front of me...
Why the fock don't cops ever issue tickets for tailgating?
Barring that, can we equip vehicles with rear mounted cannons that
automatically fire at tailgaiters?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 07:15:38
From: Scott in SoCal
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in
rec.autos.driving:
>> I find myself to be a mobile pedestrian. I ride both sidewalks and
>> streets, will cut through this or that.
>> I generally don't stop for stop signs and traffic signals. Sometimes I
>> do have to assimilate and be part of the traffic and not a pedestrian,
>> usually at busy 4-way stops.
>
>Dangerous and illegal style of riding.
And precisely why so many motorists hate pedalcyclists.
--
"It's little sh*ts like you that take my time away from my fiancee and
loved ones. F*CK YOU."
- Carl Rogers, 12/30/2006
Message-ID: <1167515577.811497.149300@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 08:59:42
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
cattanack@yahoo.com wrote:
> For some it may not be feasible to follow every traffic
> law. I don't know, I just never have.
>
Gee, I hope you don't wear a helmet.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 21:32:09
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> cattanack@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >>You got crowded BECAUSE you rode too far right. If you ride far right,
> >>you are encourgaging them to squeeze by. Use more of the lane and that
> >>problem is greatly reduced. Riding further into the lane makes you more
> >>visible, and forces motorists to adjust to you.
> >>
> >>Wayne
> >
> >
> > I believe that making motorists adjust 'to your riding habits' means
> > you are doing it wrong.
>
> Motorists adjust to other motor vehicles, including those that are going
> slower, very much slower (front loaders,
I've been around heavy equipment all my life and people adjust and
pass but sometimes it's just not safely possible to do so, so you pull
over as far as you can or pull over and let the cars pass or get
a traffic buildup behind you and people take risky moves to pass you.
My views come from not lawful city riding. It's from long distance
riders who on two lane roads ride with multiple riders ride side by
side taking the entire lane forcing drivers to take risks passing
them, where oncoming traffic and or other road hazards are or may be
present. I've seen times where the entire opposite lane was missing
after a gully washer, where you had just passed riders where they
wouldn't move over.
If a driver suddenly had to retreat from passing, the riders may be
right there. I know my heart has
gotten going a few times watching this happen.
The riders could simply move to the right and give the car more
opportunity to safely pass if these
hazardous conditions may exist. Otherwise there is relatively no
problem in passing in the other lane.
I feel strongly about this because where I had lived, the riders come
through and conflicts erupt and people do get killed. If seen close
calls and conflicts.
Both should give a little cause that's the only way both can co-exist.
I understand the county, town, whatever was going to try to require
single file riding because of problems.
That's not fair but in a place where people have to drive 60 miles and
back for a simple errand and 60 miles and back another direction for
another errand and drive 60 miles to work through twisty roads and
narrow mountain roads, they need the riders to let them more safely
pass otherwise you get to points where 10,15, ect, ect miles where you
just plain cannot safely pass and they just pissed a half-hour out of
much valuable time, only to have the same scenario the way back.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 11:58:07
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
cattanack@yahoo.com wrote:
> I've been around heavy equipment all my life and people adjust and
> pass but sometimes it's just not safely possible to do so, so you pull
> over as far as you can or pull over and let the cars pass or get
> a traffic buildup behind you and people take risky moves to pass you.
>
> My views come from not lawful city riding. It's from long distance
> riders who on two lane roads ride with multiple riders ride side by
> side taking the entire lane forcing drivers to take risks passing
> them, where oncoming traffic and or other road hazards are or may be
> present. I've seen times where the entire opposite lane was missing
> after a gully washer, where you had just passed riders where they
> wouldn't move over.
People like to equate groups of bicyclists with a single heavy equipment
operator. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Getting a recreational pack of
bicyclists to pull over so you can pass is just not going to happen.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:34:55
From: lein
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think thatdefense will fly)
|
On Aug 21, 4:44 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> :: "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> ::::: Paul Berg wrote:
>
> :::: ~
> ::::
> :::: News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
> ::::
> :::: Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
> ::::
> :::: Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
> :::: bicyclist during a case of road rage.
> ::::
> :::: According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
> :::: 25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast
> :::: Portland.
> ::::
> :::: They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then
> :::: followed Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.
> ::::
> :::: "I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over
> :::: with our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend,
> :::: Jon Barber.
> ::::
> :::: Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
> :::: scrapes.
> ::::
> :::: Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
> :::: the road.
> ::::
> :::: "The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
> :::: bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
> :::: motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with
> :::: Portland Police Bureau.
> ::::
> :::: A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the
> :::: path of the collision.
> ::::
> :::: He suffered road rash all over his body.
> :::: Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree
> :::: assault and attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.
> :::
> ::: WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone
> ::: over on purpose?!?
> :::
> ::: Sheesh...
> :::
> ::
> :: Quite right! Should be ALLEGED Attempted Assault.
>
> Alleged attempted murder.
What, for kicking somebody's SUV and causing this commotion? That
seems a bit severe.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 20:31:40
From: lein
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think that defense will fly)
|
On Aug 21, 8:17 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58 -0700, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
> > wrote:
>
> >>~
>
> >>News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
>
> >>Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
>
> >>Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
> >>bicyclist during a case of road rage.
>
> > ....
> >>Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
> >>the road.
>
> > Heh! Really poor Impulse Control. Guys like that ought not to be
> > driving at all.
>
> And just how would you propose making that happen?
increase the gas tax, afterall, such things have real costs.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 02:54:21
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 21, 7:07 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > But the fact is, wearing a helmet does bother many people, for reasons
> > related to heat as well as other reasons. They should be allowed to
> > make their own choice, and shouldn't get ridiculed by those whose
> > choice is different.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Big difference between bothering someone and playing a significant role
> in heat stroke.
Agreed. But a person should have the choice anyway.
> But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
> this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
> ought to be able to make your own call.
Agreed. And below 18, the parents ought to be able to make the call.
>
> The argument starts to stretch my imagination when claims are made that
> helmets offer little or no protection to impact. Perhaps no study can
> show definitively that they do, but humans are hard to study precisely
> because it's unethical to do the study right. I can't prove they help,
> and you can't prove that they don't, for precisely the same reason, so
> I'll continue to assume common sense applies.
That's where you're going astray. You say "Perhaps no study can show
definitively that they do." If that's the case, why on earth promote
them? It would make exactly as much sense to strongly promote four
leaf clovers or St. Christopher medals!
Let's discuss another study: Scuffham, P.A., et. al., "Trends in
Cycle Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use," Accident
Analysis & Prevention, Vol 29, No. 1, pp. 1-9, 1997.
(BTW, I'm giving complete citations on these things so you can visit
your library and get a copy. Speak to the librarian. If you're
connected to a university, you may be able to get a copy online.)
Scuffham worked for a pro-helmet agency in New Zealand. At the time
of the paper, helmet used had suddenly tripled in NZ, because they
were on the verge of enforcing an all-ages mandatory helmet law
(MHL). Scuffham's team had a great idea: Examine the medical records
of all cyclists admitted to hospitals in NZ - i.e. all cyclists with
serious injuries. Check what percentage were admitted due to serious
head injuries, vs. other serious injuries.
Good methodology! Since helmet use tripled in less than two years,
the protective effect of helmets should be obvious - there should be a
drop in the percentage admitted due to head injury occurring in those
same two years. And, BTW, the use of percentages would overcome (or
hide?) a problem with prior pro-helmet Australian studies. See, the
Ozzies had claimed success due to a drop in the _number_ of head
injuries, but others showed that the drop in bicycling was actually
greater than the drop in head injuries.
Scuffham's paper has four graphs. One shows the helmet wearing rates
for three age groups: kids, teens & adults. The other graphs show the
percent admitted due to HI, as opposed to other injuries. All graphs
cover the period from 1980 (long before any significant helmet use) to
mid-1992.
The jump in helmet use is tremendous, and clearly visible. The drop
in % head injured is completely missing. You absolutely cannot look
at the head injury graphs and tell when helmet use tripled. Instead,
all you see is a gradual downward slope in the graphs, again, starting
way back when helmet use was zero (probably caused by better
diagnostic techniques).
Of course, in papers of this type, results are not judged just by
looking at graphs. Some very fancy statistical analysis is used to
process the data; and Scuffham explains their attempt to discover the
helmet benefit using several alternate mathematical models. But he's
forced to say this in his conclusion: "What is clear from our
findings... is that cycle helmets are not achieving the gains which
were expected of them." Which is hedging quite a lot. What he really
meant is that cycle helmets achieved zero gains.
When faced with evidence like this, how can you pretend we can't prove
they don't help? If there is no benefit, there is no benefit. They
do not help. Pretending otherwise is as smart as pretending the tooth
fairy exists.
> Wear one if you think they help. Mandate them for minors.
In other words, since _you_ believe they help (despite a lack of
evidence), parents who may know much more than you should abide by
your decision?
Let us dictate your kid's eating habits. That should be just as fair.
- Frank Krygowski
P. S. To show the bias in much pro-helmet research:
As I said, Scuffham worked for a pro-helmet agency. Now, remember how
I said the % head injured showed a very gradual downward slope, going
back to 1980? Understand, that had nothing to do with helmets, since
the % wearing helmets was essentially zero until about 1987.
Well, Scuffham returned with a different paper, a different set of
calculations on the same data. He dismissed the detailed curves, and
mathematically compared two dates, one long before helmets, the other
with lots of helmets. And he said "Aha! The helmets make a
difference after all!"
Perhaps this saved his job, I don't know. But other experts in
statistics easily saw through the ruse, and a subsequent paper in AA&P
challenged his technique and pointed out the dishonesty of omitting
the time trend that was independent of helmet use.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:29:11
From: Festivus
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 21, 7:07 pm, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> That's where you're going astray. You say "Perhaps no study can show
> definitively that they do." If that's the case, why on earth promote
> them? It would make exactly as much sense to strongly promote four
> leaf clovers or St. Christopher medals!
Because there is no reasonable causal connection between four leaf
clovers and head injuries. Surrounding the affected organ with a
crushable cover has, at least in theory, some value.
>
> Let's discuss another study: Scuffham, P.A., et. al., "Trends in
> Cycle Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use," Accident
> Analysis & Prevention, Vol 29, No. 1, pp. 1-9, 1997.
And that study is just as fatally flawed as all of the others because it
does not have a proper control group and cannot tease out confounding
variables.
What if -
Increased helmet availability increases the likelihood that
inexperienced riders will get on the bike (and subsequently suffer a
worse accident than a seasoned rider)?
Increased helmet use increases risky behavior? This effect is even
mentioned by name on the web site YOU provided.
You don't have to rebut these individually. They merely illustrate the
point that these studies may or may not measure the effect they mean to
describe. Meanwhile, it is trivial to find evidence of the fact that in
controlled laboratory experiments, helmets offer some level of
protection to the enclosed head.
I do understand statistical analysis. To have a truly sound conclusion,
you need to give helmets to randomly selected members drawn from the
same population of riding skills and habits. You have to be diligent in
collecting data on all incidents in those groups, not through the biased
selection mechanism of emergency room visits. Ideally, you subject
members of both groups to Real World head impacts of varying degree and
type, then take them to the ER without telling the doc if they were
wearing a helmet or not. You have to monitor and regress away
confounding variables if you can even identify them.
I don't blame anyone for not having done this study.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 15:35:23
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Festivus wrote:
> I do understand statistical analysis. To have a truly sound conclusion,
> you need to give helmets to randomly selected members drawn from the
> same population of riding skills and habits. You have to be diligent in
> collecting data on all incidents in those groups, not through the biased
> selection mechanism of emergency room visits.
The ER data actually significantly underestimate the helmet benefits
because helmet wearers are far less likely to be taken to the ER with a
concussion or other head injury in the first place.
For the very serious accidents, where even a helmet could not prevent
critical injury or death, the statistics will show no benefit for helmet
usage. The ER studies all conclusively show the benefit of wearing a
helmet, even without factoring in all the avoided ER visits.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:50:39
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46ce0b63$0$27239$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
>Festivus wrote:
>
>> I do understand statistical analysis. To have a truly sound conclusion,
>> you need to give helmets to randomly selected members drawn from the
>> same population of riding skills and habits. You have to be diligent in
>> collecting data on all incidents in those groups, not through the biased
>> selection mechanism of emergency room visits.
>
>The ER data actually significantly underestimate the helmet benefits
>because helmet wearers are far less likely to be taken to the ER with a
>concussion or other head injury in the first place.
That mechanism does not cause underestimate of helmet benefits.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 00:13:58
From:
Subject: Re: Helmets: was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 21, 1:13 pm, Corky K <Cor...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
> Which is precisely the purpose of a helmet. They aren't meant to stop a truck
> travelling 70MPH from doing brain damage when they hit you. They are meant for
> the bump that one might receive falling off of their bike. That's the point. And
> you are right, it is a very narrow range of injury, but a very important one.
Where is the evidence that the narrow range of injury within the
capacity of helmets is "very important"? If it were important, there
would be obvious benefits in places like, for example, New Zealand,
when helmet use suddenly tripled. But NZ researchers were unable to
detect any reduction in head injury percentages in hospitalized
cyclists, despite helmet wearing jumping from under 30% to roughly
90%.
This seems to indicate that the range of helmet protection is tiny
indeed!
> Do you wear gloves when you ride? Same thing.
??? FWIW, I don't use gloves except for long recreational rides. They
are obviously not essential safety devices. They are merely an aid to
comfort.
I can accept that helmets are not essential safety devices, if that's
what you mean by "Same thing"!
- Frank Krygowski
Won't stop a truck.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:48:29
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 21, 11:32 am, Festivus <auto43...@hushmail.com > wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > In article <fad60o$s2...@registered.motzarella.org>,
>
> > I'm willing to bet that the hair you carried on your noggin as a 20
> > year old was or would have been a far more effective insulator with a
> > foam cap on top than without one.
>
> I wore a "foam cap" then too. Never noticed the difference.
>
> >> Really, I think that's an argument for the sake of argumentation. Sure,
> >> the effect is non-zero, but I'll wager $100 that no one can come up with
> >> a single documented case of heat exhaustion caused by a ventilated helmet.
>
> > The effect is more than non-zero; it's dramatic and obvious.
>
> Maybe to you. I only have the my own experience for comparison, but as
> long as I'm moving 15mph or so I can't tell the difference at all
> (except that I don't get a sunburn). And when I ride in weather below
> 35 degrees, I still have to wear a nylon head sock and ear coverings -
> the helmet doesn't keep nearly enough heat in to keep the ride from
> getting downright painful.
Apparently, some people are bothered by heat from helmets, and some
people are not. There can be many reasons for this - for example,
differences in climate. (People in the relatively arid west don't
understand the humid east.) Also, personal physical differences. I
know someone who frequently complains about hot or cold hands and
feet, when I'm perfectly comfortable.
But the fact is, wearing a helmet does bother many people, for reasons
related to heat as well as other reasons. They should be allowed to
make their own choice, and shouldn't get ridiculed by those whose
choice is different.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 16:07:58
From: Festivus
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> But the fact is, wearing a helmet does bother many people, for reasons
> related to heat as well as other reasons. They should be allowed to
> make their own choice, and shouldn't get ridiculed by those whose
> choice is different.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Big difference between bothering someone and playing a significant role
in heat stroke.
But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
ought to be able to make your own call.
The argument starts to stretch my imagination when claims are made that
helmets offer little or no protection to impact. Perhaps no study can
show definitively that they do, but humans are hard to study precisely
because it's unethical to do the study right. I can't prove they help,
and you can't prove that they don't, for precisely the same reason, so
I'll continue to assume common sense applies.
Wear one if you think they help. Mandate them for minors. Live with
your decisions and the consequences. At least with bikes, no one else
is likely to be the victim of your poor choices.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 23:31:42
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Festivus wrote:
> The argument starts to stretch my imagination when claims are made that
> helmets offer little or no protection to impact. Perhaps no study can
> show definitively that they do, but humans are hard to study precisely
> because it's unethical to do the study right. I can't prove they help,
> and you can't prove that they don't, for precisely the same reason, so
> I'll continue to assume common sense applies.
There can't be a double-blind study of course. So you go by all the
studies that do exist, especially the direct comparisons of emergency
room statistics which show a large benefit in terms of reduced head
injury and death rates for helmet users versus non-helmet wearers.
The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak. Even weaker
are the bizarre arguments involving driving helmets, cancer, walking
helmets, etc.. They're desperately trying to rationalize and defend
their own behavior, instead of basing their opposition to helmet laws on
the personal freedom position. They don't like the personal freedom
approach to fighting helmet laws because it would force them to admit
that they are assuming some additional risk with their decision on what
level of safety equipment to use.
The surest way to get helmet laws passed is to show up at public
hearings and try to use some of the arguments we've seen in this thread.
Please, AHZ's, stay away from public hearings and don't write letters to
newspapers with your ideas about walking helmets, cancer, and driving
helmets, and don't try to attack ER statistics with stories about income
levels or risk-compensation. You don't believe them yourself, and you're
not smart enough to convince doctors, lawyers, and other politicians.
What is true is that bicycle accidents involving head injuries are
relatively rare, so helmet laws are unnecessary and invasive public
policy, especially for adults, but even for children.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 18:17:34
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 25, 8:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:00:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> said in
> > <4E1Ai.3172$ai3.2788@trndny03>:
>
> >>>>What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical
> >>>>issue. It is a political issue. The people who understand That will
> >>>>prevail.
> >>> We understand that just fine.
> >>Doesn't sound like it.
>
> > Depends who you ask. If you ask Steven M Scharf, we don't
> > understand at all. If you ask the UK Government, who were recently
> > persuaded again not to pass a helmet law, thanks to a lot of work by
> > people advancing precisely the arguments Frank Krygowski and I
> > advance, then, well, perhaps we do.
>
> What works for the UK won't work for the US.
Perhaps it won't, sometimes. But I think it has worked in the past.
Some years ago, a mandatory helmet law for kids was proposed in my
state. I attended the public hearing before a legislative committee
in the state capitol, as did another friend who is scientifically
oriented.
Those testifying in favor used the usual tactics - bringing up a
crying child who (supposedly) would have died, but was completely
unhurt because of his helmet; saying "If only one life can be saved,
the law will have served its purpose"; saying "I've worked in an ER,
and I can testify to the terrible dangers of bicycling"; claiming
"Bike helmets prevent 85% of head injuries" and all the rest.
We were the only two testifying against the proposed law. We used data
similar to what I've given here, and explanations of the weaknesses of
such laws. It was interesting to watch dozing committee members
literally wake up when we began to speak, giving new information.
For whatever reason, the bill never made it out of committee. And we
even had a few pro-law speakers come up to us afterward and compliment
us on the points we made. They said they had never known the
information we'd presented, and they were clearly impressed. We sent
them away with citations, so they could learn more.
Granted, the compulsion crew is still at work. They may try again,
and we may lose. But I think we made a positive difference.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 03:37:22
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 25, 8:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:00:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> said in
>> > <4E1Ai.3172$ai3.2788@trndny03>:
>>
>> >>>>What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical
>> >>>>issue. It is a political issue. The people who understand That
>> >>>>will prevail.
>> >>> We understand that just fine.
>> >>Doesn't sound like it.
>>
>> > Depends who you ask. If you ask Steven M Scharf, we don't
>> > understand at all. If you ask the UK Government, who were recently
>> > persuaded again not to pass a helmet law, thanks to a lot of work
>> > by people advancing precisely the arguments Frank Krygowski and I
>> > advance, then, well, perhaps we do.
>>
>> What works for the UK won't work for the US.
>
> Perhaps it won't, sometimes. But I think it has worked in the past.
>
> Some years ago, a mandatory helmet law for kids was proposed in my
> state. I attended the public hearing before a legislative committee
> in the state capitol, as did another friend who is scientifically
> oriented.
>
> Those testifying in favor used the usual tactics - bringing up a
> crying child who (supposedly) would have died, but was completely
> unhurt because of his helmet; saying "If only one life can be saved,
> the law will have served its purpose"; saying "I've worked in an ER,
> and I can testify to the terrible dangers of bicycling"; claiming
> "Bike helmets prevent 85% of head injuries" and all the rest.
>
> We were the only two testifying against the proposed law. We used data
> similar to what I've given here, and explanations of the weaknesses of
> such laws. It was interesting to watch dozing committee members
> literally wake up when we began to speak, giving new information.
>
> For whatever reason, the bill never made it out of committee. And we
> even had a few pro-law speakers come up to us afterward and compliment
> us on the points we made. They said they had never known the
> information we'd presented, and they were clearly impressed. We sent
> them away with citations, so they could learn more.
>
> Granted, the compulsion crew is still at work. They may try again,
> and we may lose. But I think we made a positive difference.
Then you kept your yaps shut about the big bad motorists, and how you run
stop signs, etc.
What you are saying is you baffled them with bullshit.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 17:40:20
From: Picachu is a recovering sex slave
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 6:39 pm, Picachu is a recovering sex slave
<thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 27, 5:57 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>
> > >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
> > >> All the Ships at S" <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> said in
> > >> <1188243677.320880.94...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >>>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
> > >>>> you, then.
>
> > >>> Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and
> > >>> they want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real
> > >>> great Satan.
>
> > >> Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
> > >> are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>
> > >>> PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
> > >>> Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
>
> > >> Yes, I'm British,
>
> Picachu was a heavy smack user but it found Gaaaawd and repainted the
> main room in it's mind. Your allotment of french fries is due for
> repayment, Jennifer.
Pastels are forbidden for roadway use.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 17:39:08
From: Picachu is a recovering sex slave
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 5:57 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
> >> All the Ships at S" <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> said in
> >> <1188243677.320880.94...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >>>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
> >>>> you, then.
>
> >>> Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and
> >>> they want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real
> >>> great Satan.
>
> >> Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
> >> are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>
> >>> PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
> >>> Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
>
> >> Yes, I'm British,
Picachu was a heavy smack user but it found Gaaaawd and repainted the
main room in it's mind. Your allotment of french fries is due for
repayment, Jennifer.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 21:21:57
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
Picachu is a recovering sex slave wrote:
>
> Picachu was a heavy smack user but it found Gaaaawd and repainted the
> main room in it's mind. Your allotment of french fries is due for
> repayment, Jennifer.
This is the best argument yet for mandatory helmet use.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 08:27:26
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:37:22 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<Sz6Ai.512$Ah3.35@trndny04 >:
>Then you kept your yaps shut about the big bad motorists, and how you run
>stop signs, etc.
Yes, motorists are a pretty lawless bunch. I don't see that being
very relevant, though.
>What you are saying is you baffled them with bullshit.
So you say. Actually, of course, it was the pro-helmet crowd who
tried to baffle them with bullshit ("if only one life can be saved!"
- apply that across the board and you'd have to ban cars
immediately). What Frank did, and what others of us have done, is
to point out that the law promoters only ever give one half of one
half of the story.
You might be one with Scharf in believing that giving all the facts
is wrong, but Frank and I disagree.
But here's a little challenge for you: there are a number of helmet
laws in force right now, would you like to cite the before and after
head injury rate data for any jurisdictions in which helmet laws
have yielded a measurable improvement? Try it. After all, with
several laws in force it should be dead easy to show the exact
proportion of injuries they save, rather than hypothesising from
prospective studies.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 07:34:45
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:37:22 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in
> <Sz6Ai.512$Ah3.35@trndny04>:
>
>>Then you kept your yaps shut about the big bad motorists, and how you
>>run stop signs, etc.
>
> Yes, motorists are a pretty lawless bunch. I don't see that being
> very relevant, though.
>
>>What you are saying is you baffled them with bullshit.
>
> So you say. Actually, of course, it was the pro-helmet crowd who
> tried to baffle them with bullshit ("if only one life can be saved!"
> - apply that across the board and you'd have to ban cars
> immediately). What Frank did, and what others of us have done, is
> to point out that the law promoters only ever give one half of one
> half of the story.
What you and others have done is provide an amusing dog and pony show for
some politicians who already Knew which way they were going to vote and
why.
>
> You might be one with Scharf in believing that giving all the facts
> is wrong, but Frank and I disagree.
>
> But here's a little challenge for you: there are a number of helmet
> laws in force right now, would you like to cite the before and after
> head injury rate data for any jurisdictions in which helmet laws
> have yielded a measurable improvement? Try it. After all, with
> several laws in force it should be dead easy to show the exact
> proportion of injuries they save, rather than hypothesising from
> prospective studies.
Why try it, I Don't Care.
It will be settled at a political level.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 21:13:43
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:34:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<p2aAi.1421$0_2.1317@trndny07 >:
>What you and others have done is provide an amusing dog and pony show for
>some politicians who already Knew which way they were going to vote and
>why.
Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
information for the larger number of politicians who did not already
know.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 21:24:43
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:34:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in
> <p2aAi.1421$0_2.1317@trndny07>:
>
>>What you and others have done is provide an amusing dog and pony show
>>for some politicians who already Knew which way they were going to
>>vote and why.
>
> Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
> information for the larger number of politicians who did not already
> know.
Dream On!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:47:56
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:24:43 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<vcmAi.965$j23.713@trndny06 >:
>> Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
>> information for the larger number of politicians who did not already
>> know.
>Dream On!
Check Hansard for the United Kingdom parliament, 23 April 2004.
Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, defeated.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:04:59
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:24:43 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in
> <vcmAi.965$j23.713@trndny06>:
>
>>> Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
>>> information for the larger number of politicians who did not already
>>> know.
>
>>Dream On!
>
> Check Hansard for the United Kingdom parliament, 23 April 2004.
> Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, defeated.
And?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:30:26
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:04:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<fOmAi.5560$yv3.1687@trndny01 >:
>>>> Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
>>>> information for the larger number of politicians who did not already
>>>> know.
>>>Dream On!
>> Check Hansard for the United Kingdom parliament, 23 April 2004.
>> Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, defeated.
>And?
You will discover that people advancing the kinds of arguments that
Frank and I advance, were able to successfully prevent the passage
of a helmet law.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 21:18:44
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Just zis Guy, you know? aka Guy Chapman wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:04:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in
> <fOmAi.5560$yv3.1687@trndny01>:
>
>>>>> Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
>>>>> information for the larger number of politicians who did not already
>>>>> know.
>
>>>> Dream On!
>
>>> Check Hansard for the United Kingdom parliament, 23 April 2004.
>>> Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, defeated.
>
>> And?
>
> You will discover that people advancing the kinds of arguments that
> Frank and I advance, were able to successfully prevent the passage
> of a helmet law.
My hypothesis is that "Lobby Dosser" is a long lost relative of Ed Dolan
(aka Mr. Ed the Grate). The argumentation to be annoying style is common
to both.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 22:26:50
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:04:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in
> <fOmAi.5560$yv3.1687@trndny01>:
>
>>>>> Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
>>>>> information for the larger number of politicians who did not
>>>>> already know.
>
>>>>Dream On!
>
>>> Check Hansard for the United Kingdom parliament, 23 April 2004.
>>> Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, defeated.
>
>>And?
>
> You will discover that people advancing the kinds of arguments that
> Frank and I advance, were able to successfully prevent the passage
> of a helmet law.
Proof?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 16:37:32
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> You will discover that people advancing the kinds of arguments that
>> Frank and I advance, were able to successfully prevent the passage
>> of a helmet law.
>
> Proof?
It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the laws
were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of what they
said.
The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was at
these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
Usenet in the helmet wars.
If I had to guess, they were probably presenting real data about how low
the accident rate for cyclists actually is, and how unnecessary a
compulsory law actually is. They may have been claiming that helmet laws
result in reduced levels of cycling, even though no data is available
that proves this.
This the approach that was successful in my club when the do-gooders
tried to make helmets compulsory on all rides, rather than letting the
ride leaders decide (eventually we could no longer obtain insurance
without a helmet requirement and we were forced into requiring helmets
on all rides).
It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
status affect ER visits, either one way or another.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 07:55:50
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:37:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
said in <46d35ff4$0$27201$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >:
>It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the laws
>were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of what they
>said.
So you say. As it happens, our law did not pass, and the arguments
I describe were used. You assert that this approach does not work,
but it appears to us that it does. We have no evidence that the
approach you advocate as the only appropriate one has ever been
used, let alone worked. So we'll be sticking with our way.
>The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
>wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was at
>these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
>helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
>Usenet in the helmet wars.
Your username is "SMS". There is no link to say who you are. My
signature contains details of who I am, Frank posts under his own
name. So much for the anonymity argument.
Frank has testified in person in front of his legislature. I have
not, but I was in correspondence with the Minister of State, and
other members of my group *were* meeting with ministers and other
members of the legislature (and do so fairly regularly).
So your premise is false and you lose your wager.
>It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
>statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
>status affect ER visits, either one way or another.
Wrong again, bozo.
What on earth would be the reason *not* to point out that the
pro-helmet side are using a weak kind of evidence which does not
match what happens in the real world? Why would you not do that?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 23:43:29
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>>> You will discover that people advancing the kinds of arguments that
>>> Frank and I advance, were able to successfully prevent the passage
>>> of a helmet law.
>>
>> Proof?
>
> It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the
> laws were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of
> what they said.
>
> The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
> wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was
> at these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
> helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
> Usenet in the helmet wars.
>
> If I had to guess, they were probably presenting real data about how
> low the accident rate for cyclists actually is, and how unnecessary a
> compulsory law actually is. They may have been claiming that helmet
> laws result in reduced levels of cycling, even though no data is
> available that proves this.
>
> This the approach that was successful in my club when the do-gooders
> tried to make helmets compulsory on all rides, rather than letting the
> ride leaders decide (eventually we could no longer obtain insurance
> without a helmet requirement and we were forced into requiring helmets
> on all rides).
>
> It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
> statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
> status affect ER visits, either one way or another.
>
And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do with
stopping a helmet law, is there?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 17:51:51
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do with
> stopping a helmet law, is there?
No, but they think they did! While to most of us they come across as
rather foolish on Usenet, each could have a totally different persona
when live in front of policymakers, and they could actually be effective
lobbyists when the anonymity of Usenet is stripped away.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 00:58:27
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do
>> with stopping a helmet law, is there?
>
> No, but they think they did! While to most of us they come across as
> rather foolish on Usenet, each could have a totally different persona
> when live in front of policymakers, and they could actually be
> effective lobbyists when the anonymity of Usenet is stripped away.
>
>
Or not. I suspect not. True Believers being what they are.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 19:39:32
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46cd2987$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
>
>The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
>not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak. Even weaker
>are the bizarre arguments involving driving helmets, cancer, walking
>helmets, etc.
Sneering at the arguments and calling them bizarre doesn't make them
any less valid.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 17:57:18
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <46cd2987$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
>> not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak. Even weaker
>> are the bizarre arguments involving driving helmets, cancer, walking
>> helmets, etc.
>
> Sneering at the arguments and calling them bizarre doesn't make them
> any less valid.
That's true, it would not be possible for anything to make them less
valid than they already are. On the other hand, it _is_ important to
discredit the people that promote these bizarre arguments (walking
helmets, driving helmets, cancer comparisons, etc.).
It is vital that the people that set public policy understand that these
anti-helmet arguments are simply the statements of a tiny lunatic
fringe, and they will not hold them against the general cycling
community when setting policies and proposing legislation.
I think we have the same goal, preventing mandatory helmet laws. Many of
us believe that the best way of achieving this goal is to be honest
about the proven benefits of helmets in a head-impact bicycle crash.
Others believe that if they attack the ER studies and statements from
the medical community, they will prevent legislation. The latter method
won't work because the politicians will look at the bizarre arguments
promulgated by the AHZ's, shake their heads in bewilderment and do what
the medical community wants. It's similar to how the neo-cons attempt to
equate Democrats with Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, when in reality
most Democrats are far more centrist, and are aghast at the crap pouring
from the far left.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 20:07:48
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46ce2ca7$0$27199$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <46cd2987$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
>>> not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak. Even weaker
>>> are the bizarre arguments involving driving helmets, cancer, walking
>>> helmets, etc.
>>
>> Sneering at the arguments and calling them bizarre doesn't make them
>> any less valid.
>
>That's true, it would not be possible for anything to make them less
>valid than they already are. On the other hand, it _is_ important to
>discredit the people that promote these bizarre arguments (walking
>helmets, driving helmets, cancer comparisons, etc.).
You don't discredit anyone by refusing to confront the argument and
instead simply sneering at them.
>It is vital that the people that set public policy understand that these
>anti-helmet arguments are simply the statements of a tiny lunatic
>fringe, and they will not hold them against the general cycling
>community when setting policies and proposing legislation.
>I think we have the same goal, preventing mandatory helmet laws. Many of
>us believe that the best way of achieving this goal is to be honest
>about the proven benefits of helmets in a head-impact bicycle crash.
Then why don't you be honest? It appears you've simply decided that
those who set public policy will be impacted negatively by arguments
against the effectiveness of helmets (regardless of their validity)
and so you will attempt to shout those arguments down to appease the
lawmakers. It won't work; you can't gain ground by yielding the
helmet-law-proponent's points. They're control freaks, so trying to
say "Yes, helmets prevent head injuries. Yes, there's no significant
downside to helmet use. But no, there shouldn't be mandatory helmet
laws" just won't work.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 14:04:18
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> You don't discredit anyone by refusing to confront the argument and
> instead simply sneering at them.
LOL, it's up them to come up with coherent arguments against all the ER
studies, not up to me to respond to incoherent babbling.
You're going to have to accept that there will not be a double-blind
study of injury severity after head-impact accidents, with and without
helmets. Once you understand that, you can move forward and accept the
ER studies even though they are not perfect. But understand that they
are imperfect in a way that actually understates their benefit, because
of all the ER visits that are avoided in the first place.
As others have stated, the number of head-impact accidents where a
helmet would make a difference is very small, simply because the number
of head impact accidents is very small. There is no need for compulsion.
It's a personal freedom issue of how much risk you want to accept. For
some reason, this isn't good enough for some AHZ's, they really want to
convince themselves that the helmet provides no protection at all.
There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
knows not of what they speak:
1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
somehow worthless.
2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
driving or walking.
3. They mis-use "self-selection" in an attempt to "prove" that the ER
studies must be false because the believe, with no evidence, that a
helmeted cyclist is more likely to visit the ER after a head-impact crash.
4. They demand double-blind surveys and tests, knowing full well that it
isn't possible (or at least not ethical) to perform them.
5. The try to work in cancer, PMS, ED, or other medical conditions.
You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 14:37:32
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 26, 3:27 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:37:22 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> said in
> <Sz6Ai.512$Ah3.35@trndny04>:
>
> >Then you kept your yaps shut about the big bad motorists, and how you run
> >stop signs, etc.
>
> Yes, motorists are a pretty lawless bunch. I don't see that being
> very relevant, though.
>
> >What you are saying is you baffled them with bullshit.
>
> So you say. Actually, of course, it was the pro-helmet crowd who
> tried to baffle them with bullshit ("if only one life can be saved!"
> - apply that across the board and you'd have to ban cars
> immediately). What Frank did, and what others of us have done, is
> to point out that the law promoters only ever give one half of one
> half of the story.
>
> You might be one with Scharf in believing that giving all the facts
> is wrong, but Frank and I disagree.
>
> But here's a little challenge for you: there are a number of helmet
> laws in force right now, would you like to cite the before and after
> head injury rate data for any jurisdictions in which helmet laws
> have yielded a measurable improvement? Try it. After all, with
> several laws in force it should be dead easy to show the exact
> proportion of injuries they save, rather than hypothesising from
> prospective studies.
I'd like to add a qualification to Guy's request. When citing before
and after injury rates, please give PER CYCLIST rates.
Why? Because helmet law apologists have generally tried to hide the
fact that their law caused large drops in cycling. They claim reduced
head injuries as a triumph, even when the reduction comes because they
just kept people off bikes - and even when the drop in cycling was
greater than the drop in head injuries!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 10:49:29
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46cf478a$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, SMS wrote:
> 1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
> believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
> somehow worthless.
Because that is what it is. When I think of helmet, I think of something
like a motorcycle helmet or combat helmet or batting helmet, not a
flimsy foam cap. Calling it a 'helmet' is quite misleading IMO because it
gives people the impression that it is a protective device of much more
capability than it has.
> 2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
> driving or walking.
It's a question of risk. Bicycling has a low risk of injury like many
daily activities. If we aren't going to pad ourselves up for daily
activities that actually are just as more risky than bicycling, why
should we do it for bicycling?
> 3. They mis-use "self-selection" in an attempt to "prove" that the ER
> studies must be false because the believe, with no evidence, that a
> helmeted cyclist is more likely to visit the ER after a head-impact crash.
The ER studies that support foam caps have been shown to be rather
flawed. Frank uses better done ER studies that do not have the flaws and
guess what, the benefit for foam hats goes away.
> 4. They demand double-blind surveys and tests, knowing full well that it
> isn't possible (or at least not ethical) to perform them.
See 3.
> 5. The try to work in cancer, PMS, ED, or other medical conditions.
When pro helmet people argue that bicycling without a helmet is a drain
on the resources of society in order to justify their control freakism it
is appropiate to point out that biycling is a net benefit to society
regardless if the person bicycling wears the special attire or not. The
idea that some how un-helmeted (hatted) bicyclists are drain on society's
resources is simply absurd.
Since the control freaks use the 'cost to society' to justify their
control, it makes sense to point out behaviors they may engage in that
have a 'cost to society' as well. If biking without covering the top
of one's head with foam has a cost to society that demands laws and
control so do many of their behaviors from smoking to eating the 'wrong'
foods to engaging in any number of forms of recreation.
> You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
> by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
> the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.
There's no need to babble, ancodotal evidence like that is just plain
weak and distorted by who choses to visit them. The overly concerned are
sure to visit them for much lesser injury, much lesser events than those
who are not. Of course that group of overly concerned people are more
likely to wear the device.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 10:27:37
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46cf478a$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> You don't discredit anyone by refusing to confront the argument and
>> instead simply sneering at them.
>
>LOL, it's up them to come up with coherent arguments against all the ER
>studies, not up to me to respond to incoherent babbling.
They already have proposed mechanisms for bias in the ER studies which have
actually been brought up. You may not accept them, but characterizing
them as incoherent babbling does not refute them. Nor does returning
to anecdote or sneering remarks to the effect of "don't wear a helmet
and die, then"
>You're going to have to accept that there will not be a double-blind
>study of injury severity after head-impact accidents, with and without
>helmets. Once you understand that, you can move forward and accept the
>ER studies even though they are not perfect. But understand that they
>are imperfect in a way that actually understates their benefit, because
>of all the ER visits that are avoided in the first place.
That mechanism doesn't cause underestimate by the metrics I've seen
mentioned here.
>As others have stated, the number of head-impact accidents where a
>helmet would make a difference is very small, simply because the number
>of head impact accidents is very small. There is no need for compulsion.
>It's a personal freedom issue of how much risk you want to accept. For
>some reason, this isn't good enough for some AHZ's, they really want to
>convince themselves that the helmet provides no protection at all.
The personal freedom issue is not good enough for control freaks
either. I see no reason to give up on the "helmets are of marginal
benefit" argument if it is true. Furthermore, it makes a difference
to my personal decision. I typically wear one, but I much prefer not
to, particuarly in hot weather.
>There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
>knows not of what they speak:
>
>1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
>believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
>somehow worthless.
So they're being derisive as well. That does not indicate a lack of knowledge.
>2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
>driving or walking.
Doesn't seem irrelevant to me. If the risk of head injury while
biking is similar to that while walking, there's no real argument for
helmets while biking.
>You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
>by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
>the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.
What doctors, nurses, and EMTs believe is anecdote at best, secondhand
wisdom somewhere in the middle, and a political ploy at worst (the
latter not so much with respect to bicycle helmets, but often with
respect to gun control)
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 15:09:14
From: Paul Berg
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
~
629 posts th this thread so far. Will it make a 1,000?
~
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 08:43:59
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <46cf478a$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> 2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
>> driving or walking.
> Doesn't seem irrelevant to me. If the risk of head injury while
> biking is similar to that while walking, there's no real argument for
> helmets while biking.
Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph with
huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster? (Oh, and you're
perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny wheels and tires, the latter
of which are inflated to sky-high pressures.)
But walking to the mailbox...THAT requires a lid.
You can easily manipulate statistics to back this up, as many do.
HTH
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 11:43:28
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph with
> huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster? (Oh, and you're
> perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny wheels and tires, the latter
> of which are inflated to sky-high pressures.)
And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such as
yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should one crash at
45mph.
I've learned about the standards to which bicycle 'helmets' are designed.
Since I am taller than 6', if I simply fell over, I've exceeded the
capacity of the helmet. No impact from a car needed, no 45mph velocity,
just falling over.... So, if that's all the protection the bicycle
'helmet' offers me, I don't see why I should wear one while bicycling
but not for any daily activity where I might fall with a similiar or
greater risk.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 15:18:34
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
>
>
> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political Issue.
> Everywhere. Deal with it.
Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and presentation
of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws. Why? Because
they are a political issue.
Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_ is
a political issue.
It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of the
most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails of
sacrificed animals?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 22:35:31
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political Issue.
>> Everywhere. Deal with it.
>
> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and presentation
> of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws. Why? Because
> they are a political issue.
>
> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_ is
> a political issue.
>
> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of the
> most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>
> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails of
> sacrificed animals?
That seems more your line of work.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 12:22:17
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph
>> with huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster? (Oh, and
>> you're perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny wheels and
>> tires, the latter of which are inflated to sky-high pressures.)
>
> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such as
> yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should one crash
> at 45mph.
Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact with
immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed the cyclist
was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
> I've learned about the standards to which bicycle 'helmets' are
> designed. Since I am taller than 6', if I simply fell over, I've
> exceeded the capacity of the helmet. No impact from a car needed, no
> 45mph velocity, just falling over.... So, if that's all the
> protection the bicycle 'helmet' offers me, I don't see why I should
> wear one while bicycling
> but not for any daily activity where I might fall with a similiar or
> greater risk.
Helmets, bike lanes... Is there anything of which you're NOT afraid?!? LOL
What a maroon...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 15:47:04
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact with
> immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed the cyclist
> was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
Indeed, this is one of the most frequent mis-representations of the
AHZ's. It's actually rare that an accident is such that the impact on
the head is equivalent to the initial impact.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:36:05
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:47:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
said in <46d2029e$0$27237$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >:
>> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact with
>> immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed the cyclist
>> was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
>Indeed, this is one of the most frequent mis-representations of the
>AHZ's. It's actually rare that an accident is such that the impact on
>the head is equivalent to the initial impact.
Bullshit on several levels.
First, there is no such thing as an "anti-helmet zealot" (test: find
anyone who is seeking to pass a law mandating the non-use of
helmets).
Second, I have never seen anyone suggest that the impact speed is
the same as the travelling speed, only that the impact speeds for
which helmets are specified arc well below the likely impact speeds
in any real world situation.
Third, the main cause of seriously debilitating head injuries is
rotational impacts, and the only research which directly addresses
this shows that helmets actually make these worse.
Fourth, the forces involved in any collision with a motor vehicle
will be well outside the capacity of a bicycle helmet. Estimates of
the forces i real-life crashes typically exceed the rated capacity
of a competition motorsport helmet, according to the leading helmet
test lab in the UK.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 15:50:03
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d0816f$0$4068$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph
>>> with huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster? (Oh, and
>>> you're perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny wheels and
>>> tires, the latter of which are inflated to sky-high pressures.)
>>
>> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such as
>> yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should one crash
>> at 45mph.
>
> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact with
> immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed the cyclist
> was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
So you do think they are magic hats. Go add up the vectors and figure it
out.
>> I've learned about the standards to which bicycle 'helmets' are
>> designed. Since I am taller than 6', if I simply fell over, I've
>> exceeded the capacity of the helmet. No impact from a car needed, no
>> 45mph velocity, just falling over.... So, if that's all the
>> protection the bicycle 'helmet' offers me, I don't see why I should
>> wear one while bicycling
>> but not for any daily activity where I might fall with a similiar or
>> greater risk.
> Helmets, bike lanes... Is there anything of which you're NOT afraid?!? LOL
> What a maroon...
Afraid? You're the scared one needing armor and special lanes.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 20:09:29
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political Issue.
> >> Everywhere. Deal with it.
>
> > Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and presentation
> > of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws. Why? Because
> > they are a political issue.
>
> > Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_ is
> > a political issue.
>
> > It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
> > perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of the
> > most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>
> > How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails of
> > sacrificed animals?
>
> That seems more your line of work.
Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
I make most of my important decisions.
How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
cracking?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 03:20:54
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>> >> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>
>> > Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>> > presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>> > Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>
>> > Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_
>> > is a political issue.
>>
>> > It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>> > perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>> > the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>
>> > How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails
>> > of sacrificed animals?
>>
>> That seems more your line of work.
>
> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
> I make most of my important decisions.
>
> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
> cracking?
Facts.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 22:34:53
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_
>>>> is a political issue.
>>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails
>>>> of sacrificed animals?
>>> That seems more your line of work.
>> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
>> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
>> I make most of my important decisions.
>>
>> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
>> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
>> cracking?
>
> Facts.
Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
position?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 06:21:59
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>>>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>>>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>>>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved,
>>>>> _everything_ is a political issue.
>>>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>>>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>>>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the
>>>>> entrails of sacrificed animals?
>>>> That seems more your line of work.
>>> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
>>> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's
>>> how I make most of my important decisions.
>>>
>>> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
>>> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of
>>> wise- cracking?
>>
>> Facts.
>
> Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
> position?
>
Cute. But content free.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 14:52:16
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 1:07 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
>
>
> Dude, you truly are delusional and paranoid (quite the two-fer). I'm pro
> the CHOICE to wear lids, and react to people who give those who do so grief.
> I'm not in favor of MHLs.
I don't know of _anyone_ who would forbid or outlaw helmet wearing.
But I've met many people who approve of laws requiring helmets. And
we know that those people have passed mandatory helmet laws in many
jurisdictions.
Yet every time this subject comes up, you argue as strongly as you can
_against_ those who most oppose MHLs. You have _never_ "given grief"
to anyone speaking in favor of helmets in any way.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 01:29:47
From: Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 27, 12:44 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > In article <46d25c01$0$24082$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> > wrote:
> >> Brent P wrote:
> >>> In article <46d23fc7$0$11011$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you
> >>>>> stop being a control freak and stop bothering people?
>
> >>>> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If
> >>>> you'd written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds"
> >>>> I'd not've commented.
>
> >>> Bullshit. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet
> >>> views to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it
> >>> your way.
>
> >> Dude, you truly are delusional and paranoid (quite the two-fer).
>
> > Yet more insults. You've been content free now for some time. Loser.
>
> >> I'm pro
> >> the CHOICE to wear lids, and react to people who give those who do so
> >> grief. I'm not in favor of MHLs.
>
> > Given your posts the only choice you respect is one that matches your
> > own.
>
> >> Please, buy yourself a clue.
>
> > Yet you have a problem with my views.
>
> You are a TRUE BELIEVER. Only the Shriven would not seem to have a
> problem with your views.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
When are these guys getting killed or something? I haven't been paying
attention much.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 13:59:31
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d0816f$0$4068$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45
>>>> mph with huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster?
>>>> (Oh, and you're perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny
>>>> wheels and tires, the latter of which are inflated to sky-high
>>>> pressures.)
>>>
>>> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such as
>>> yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should one crash
>>> at 45mph.
>>
>> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact
>> with immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed
>> the cyclist was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
>
> So you do think they are magic hats. Go add up the vectors and figure
> it out.
Vectors schmectors. If I take a fall while riding, then a barrier between
my skull and the pavement is a GOOD THING. Not "magic", just beneficial.
HTH
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 21:57:37
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> ...If I take a fall while riding, then a barrier between
> my skull and the pavement is a GOOD THING....
Don't want any sense knocked in ya, eh? ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 16:02:31
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d09838$0$16491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <46d0816f$0$4068$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45
>>>>> mph with huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster?
>>>>> (Oh, and you're perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny
>>>>> wheels and tires, the latter of which are inflated to sky-high
>>>>> pressures.)
>>>>
>>>> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such as
>>>> yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should one crash
>>>> at 45mph.
>>>
>>> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact
>>> with immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed
>>> the cyclist was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
>>
>> So you do think they are magic hats. Go add up the vectors and figure
>> it out.
>
> Vectors schmectors. If I take a fall while riding, then a barrier between
> my skull and the pavement is a GOOD THING. Not "magic", just beneficial.
Nice SUV lover logic there.... put up with the ill handling gas sucking
beast because maybe, if there is a crash, the extra steel might be a
beneficial barrier.
Cost-benefit-analysis. The annoyance trumps the merger benefit.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 14:42:35
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d09838$0$16491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <46d0816f$0$4068$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill
>>>>> Sornson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45
>>>>>> mph with huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster?
>>>>>> (Oh, and you're perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny
>>>>>> wheels and tires, the latter of which are inflated to sky-high
>>>>>> pressures.)
>>>>>
>>>>> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such
>>>>> as yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should one
>>>>> crash at 45mph.
>>>>
>>>> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact
>>>> with immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed
>>>> the cyclist was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
>>>
>>> So you do think they are magic hats. Go add up the vectors and
>>> figure it out.
>>
>> Vectors schmectors. If I take a fall while riding, then a barrier
>> between my skull and the pavement is a GOOD THING. Not "magic",
>> just beneficial.
> Nice SUV lover logic there.... put up with the ill handling gas
> sucking beast because maybe, if there is a crash, the extra steel
> might be a beneficial barrier.
Non-sequitur much? (However, you are aware that people in small cars are
much more likely to die in accidents -- AND that current CAFE standards are
blamed for increasing deaths by thousands each year.)
Otherwise, you really nailed it. LOL
Bill "both of my cars are 4-bangers, and one's a two-seater" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 18:59:35
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d0a266$0$16505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <46d09838$0$16491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <46d0816f$0$4068$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>> In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill
>>>>>> Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45
>>>>>>> mph with huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster?
>>>>>>> (Oh, and you're perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny
>>>>>>> wheels and tires, the latter of which are inflated to sky-high
>>>>>>> pressures.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such
>>>>>> as yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should one
>>>>>> crash at 45mph.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact
>>>>> with immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed
>>>>> the cyclist was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
>>>>
>>>> So you do think they are magic hats. Go add up the vectors and
>>>> figure it out.
>>>
>>> Vectors schmectors. If I take a fall while riding, then a barrier
>>> between my skull and the pavement is a GOOD THING. Not "magic",
>>> just beneficial.
>
>> Nice SUV lover logic there.... put up with the ill handling gas
>> sucking beast because maybe, if there is a crash, the extra steel
>> might be a beneficial barrier.
>
> Non-sequitur much? (However, you are aware that people in small cars are
> much more likely to die in accidents -- AND that current CAFE standards are
> blamed for increasing deaths by thousands each year.)
>
> Otherwise, you really nailed it. LOL
You missed something... CAFE took the mass out of *PASSENGER* cars. SUVs
are *TRUCKS*. The added mass in an SUV is actually not of much value for
safety while it the extra mass in those large passenger cars did have
safety value. Of course you didn't know that and just flashed your
ignorance to the world again.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 00:45:20
From: Picachu is a recovering sex slave
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Aug 28, 12:21 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
> >>>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
> >>>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
> >>>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
> >>>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
> >>>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved,
> >>>>> _everything_ is a political issue.
> >>>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
> >>>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
> >>>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
> >>>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the
> >>>>> entrails of sacrificed animals?
> >>>> That seems more your line of work.
> >>> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
> >>> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's
> >>> how I make most of my important decisions.
>
> >>> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
> >>> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of
> >>> wise- cracking?
>
> >> Facts.
>
> > Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
> > position?
>
> Cute. But content free.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I need Maalox after that cracker.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 18:25:31
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d0a266$0$16505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <46d09838$0$16491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article <46d0816f$0$4068$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill
>>>>>>> Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at
>>>>>>>> 45 mph with huge speeding behemoths all around going much
>>>>>>>> faster? (Oh, and you're perched atop a thin frame with two
>>>>>>>> very skinny wheels and tires, the latter of which are inflated
>>>>>>>> to sky-high pressures.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such
>>>>>>> as yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should
>>>>>>> one crash at 45mph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct
>>>>>> impact with immovable objects the force of which is identical to
>>>>>> the speed the cyclist was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
>>>>>
>>>>> So you do think they are magic hats. Go add up the vectors and
>>>>> figure it out.
>>>>
>>>> Vectors schmectors. If I take a fall while riding, then a barrier
>>>> between my skull and the pavement is a GOOD THING. Not "magic",
>>>> just beneficial.
>>
>>> Nice SUV lover logic there.... put up with the ill handling gas
>>> sucking beast because maybe, if there is a crash, the extra steel
>>> might be a beneficial barrier.
>>
>> Non-sequitur much? (However, you are aware that people in small
>> cars are much more likely to die in accidents -- AND that current
>> CAFE standards are blamed for increasing deaths by thousands each
>> year.)
>>
>> Otherwise, you really nailed it. LOL
>
> You missed something... CAFE took the mass out of *PASSENGER* cars.
> SUVs are *TRUCKS*. The added mass in an SUV is actually not of much
> value for safety while it the extra mass in those large passenger
> cars did have safety value. Of course you didn't know that and just
> flashed your ignorance to the world again.
You went from falling off a bike and wanting barrier protection for one's
skull to a totally lame SUV...analogy? (Non-sequitur describes it much
better.) The FACT is more steel DOES mean better protection, so I mentioned
that CAFE standards (which ARE being proposed for trucks and SUVs, BTW) HAVE
resulted in more deaths by the thousands in the U.S. (due to LESS MASS in
passenger cars and MORE DAMAGE in crashes. Also, of course, being hit by
BIG-MASS bigger-ass vehicles.) "Of course you /pretended/ to not know that
and just flashed your ignorance to the world again."
You're impersonating Flailor, aren't you? Good one!
LOL
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 22:16:16
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d0d695$0$28839$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <46d0a266$0$16505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <46d09838$0$16491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>> In article <46d0816f$0$4068$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill
>>>>>>>> Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at
>>>>>>>>> 45 mph with huge speeding behemoths all around going much
>>>>>>>>> faster? (Oh, and you're perched atop a thin frame with two
>>>>>>>>> very skinny wheels and tires, the latter of which are inflated
>>>>>>>>> to sky-high pressures.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such
>>>>>>>> as yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should
>>>>>>>> one crash at 45mph.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct
>>>>>>> impact with immovable objects the force of which is identical to
>>>>>>> the speed the cyclist was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you do think they are magic hats. Go add up the vectors and
>>>>>> figure it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vectors schmectors. If I take a fall while riding, then a barrier
>>>>> between my skull and the pavement is a GOOD THING. Not "magic",
>>>>> just beneficial.
>>>
>>>> Nice SUV lover logic there.... put up with the ill handling gas
>>>> sucking beast because maybe, if there is a crash, the extra steel
>>>> might be a beneficial barrier.
>>>
>>> Non-sequitur much? (However, you are aware that people in small
>>> cars are much more likely to die in accidents -- AND that current
>>> CAFE standards are blamed for increasing deaths by thousands each
>>> year.)
>>>
>>> Otherwise, you really nailed it. LOL
>>
>> You missed something... CAFE took the mass out of *PASSENGER* cars.
>> SUVs are *TRUCKS*. The added mass in an SUV is actually not of much
>> value for safety while it the extra mass in those large passenger
>> cars did have safety value. Of course you didn't know that and just
>> flashed your ignorance to the world again.
>
> You went from falling off a bike and wanting barrier protection for one's
> skull to a totally lame SUV...analogy?
I went? You're the one who decided to use that sort of rational, I just
pointed out what you are doing.
> (Non-sequitur describes it much
> better.) The FACT is more steel DOES mean better protection,
Wrong. Put steel ignots in the trunk of your car. How much protection did
you add? Put them in the back seat without securing them and you've
actually put yourself at risk.
> so I mentioned
> that CAFE standards (which ARE being proposed for trucks and SUVs, BTW) HAVE
> resulted in more deaths by the thousands in the U.S. (due to LESS MASS in
> passenger cars and MORE DAMAGE in crashes.
Mass that isn't used properly provides no protection, only more energy
to cause damage. In older passenger cars the mass was used in such a way
that it prevented intrusions into the passenger compartment. On an SUV
the extra mass is used for off road capabilities, towing, and cargo
carrying.
> You're impersonating Flailor, aren't you? Good one!
You just keep on showing that you have no clue at all. Probably why you
hold the views you do, you were easily duped.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 20:52:45
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P-brained wrote:
> In article <46d0d695$0$28839$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <46d0a266$0$16505$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article <46d09838$0$16491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill
>>>>> Sornson wrote:
>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <46d0816f$0$4068$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill
>>>>>>> Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill
>>>>>>>>> Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at
>>>>>>>>>> 45 mph with huge speeding behemoths all around going much
>>>>>>>>>> faster? (Oh, and you're perched atop a thin frame with two
>>>>>>>>>> very skinny wheels and tires, the latter of which are
>>>>>>>>>> inflated to sky-high pressures.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people
>>>>>>>>> such as yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful
>>>>>>>>> should one crash at 45mph.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct
>>>>>>>> impact with immovable objects the force of which is identical
>>>>>>>> to the speed the cyclist was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode
>>>>>>>> Off}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you do think they are magic hats. Go add up the vectors and
>>>>>>> figure it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vectors schmectors. If I take a fall while riding, then a
>>>>>> barrier between my skull and the pavement is a GOOD THING. Not
>>>>>> "magic", just beneficial.
>>>>
>>>>> Nice SUV lover logic there.... put up with the ill handling gas
>>>>> sucking beast because maybe, if there is a crash, the extra steel
>>>>> might be a beneficial barrier.
>>>>
>>>> Non-sequitur much? (However, you are aware that people in small
>>>> cars are much more likely to die in accidents -- AND that current
>>>> CAFE standards are blamed for increasing deaths by thousands each
>>>> year.)
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, you really nailed it. LOL
>>>
>>> You missed something... CAFE took the mass out of *PASSENGER* cars.
>>> SUVs are *TRUCKS*. The added mass in an SUV is actually not of much
>>> value for safety while it the extra mass in those large passenger
>>> cars did have safety value. Of course you didn't know that and just
>>> flashed your ignorance to the world again.
>>
>> You went from falling off a bike and wanting barrier protection for
>> one's skull to a totally lame SUV...analogy?
>
> I went? You're the one who decided to use that sort of rational, I
> just pointed out what you are doing.
The word is "rationale", and people can read the thread and see that I'm
right. Again. (Hint: I made a comment about helmets, and you
extrapolated -- nice word for tortured the logic -- to SUVs. You're an
over-emotional ideologue who can't keep your subjects -- much less facts --
straight.)
>> (Non-sequitur describes it much
>> better.) The FACT is more steel DOES mean better protection,
>
> Wrong. Put steel ignots in the trunk of your car. How much protection
> did you add? Put them in the back seat without securing them and
> you've actually put yourself at risk.
Can't argue with THAT! LOL A carved out pumpkin strapped to your head --
while an improvement in appearance AND smell in your case -- won't offer
much protection, either. Gold bricks in the back seat ain't the same as a
vehicle's FRAME. Wow...
>> so I mentioned
>> that CAFE standards (which ARE being proposed for trucks and SUVs,
>> BTW) HAVE resulted in more deaths by the thousands in the U.S. (due
>> to LESS MASS in passenger cars and MORE DAMAGE in crashes.
> Mass that isn't used properly provides no protection, only more energy
> to cause damage. In older passenger cars the mass was used in such a
> way that it prevented intrusions into the passenger compartment. On
> an SUV the extra mass is used for off road capabilities, towing, and
> cargo carrying.
>
>> You're impersonating Flailor, aren't you? Good one!
>
> You just keep on showing that you have no clue at all. Probably why
> you hold the views you do, you were easily duped.
Get in your last word, P-brained. You're /flailing/ so much it's causing me
flashbacks.
Buh-bye, duh-bee. Next stop: fillkile!
Bill "no shortage of maroons 'round here" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 23:28:18
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d0f914$0$16472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P-brained wrote:
Each time you sink to new lows.
> The word is "rationale", and people can read the thread and see that I'm
> right.
No, they can see you're someone who easily falls for bullshit.
> Again. (Hint: I made a comment about helmets, and you
> extrapolated -- nice word for tortured the logic -- to SUVs. You're an
> over-emotional ideologue who can't keep your subjects -- much less facts --
> straight.)
You're the one who started spewing the bullshit of a 'security mom'. I
only pointed it out.
>>> (Non-sequitur describes it much
>>> better.) The FACT is more steel DOES mean better protection,
>> Wrong. Put steel ignots in the trunk of your car. How much protection
>> did you add? Put them in the back seat without securing them and
>> you've actually put yourself at risk.
> Can't argue with THAT! LOL A carved out pumpkin strapped to your head --
> while an improvement in appearance AND smell in your case -- won't offer
> much protection, either. Gold bricks in the back seat ain't the same as a
> vehicle's FRAME. Wow...
You were arguing more mass means more safety. I'll take that as yet
another admission that you are wrong.
>>> so I mentioned
>>> that CAFE standards (which ARE being proposed for trucks and SUVs,
>>> BTW) HAVE resulted in more deaths by the thousands in the U.S. (due
>>> to LESS MASS in passenger cars and MORE DAMAGE in crashes.
>> Mass that isn't used properly provides no protection, only more energy
>> to cause damage. In older passenger cars the mass was used in such a
>> way that it prevented intrusions into the passenger compartment. On
>> an SUV the extra mass is used for off road capabilities, towing, and
>> cargo carrying.
>>> You're impersonating Flailor, aren't you? Good one!
>>
>> You just keep on showing that you have no clue at all. Probably why
>> you hold the views you do, you were easily duped.
> Get in your last word, P-brained. You're /flailing/ so much it's causing me
> flashbacks.
> Buh-bye, duh-bee. Next stop: fillkile!
You wouldn't want basic engineering to get in the way of your emotional
based views. Afterall, in your emotional based view of the world bicycle
helmets offer significant measurable protection in the dangerous
activity of bicycling. In the engineering based world they are rated for
nothing more that a 6 foot fall and if bicycling justifies them by risk
values so do a great deal of other everyday activities that most people
consider safe.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 04:56:34
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <46d0f914$0$16472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P-brained wrote:
>
> Each time you sink to new lows.
>
>> The word is "rationale", and people can read the thread and see that
>> I'm right.
>
> No, they can see you're someone who easily falls for bullshit.
>
>> Again. (Hint: I made a comment about helmets, and you
>> extrapolated -- nice word for tortured the logic -- to SUVs. You're
>> an over-emotional ideologue who can't keep your subjects -- much less
>> facts -- straight.)
>
> You're the one who started spewing the bullshit of a 'security mom'. I
> only pointed it out.
>
>>>> (Non-sequitur describes it much
>>>> better.) The FACT is more steel DOES mean better protection,
>
>>> Wrong. Put steel ignots in the trunk of your car. How much
>>> protection did you add? Put them in the back seat without securing
>>> them and you've actually put yourself at risk.
>
>> Can't argue with THAT! LOL A carved out pumpkin strapped to your
>> head -- while an improvement in appearance AND smell in your case --
>> won't offer much protection, either. Gold bricks in the back seat
>> ain't the same as a vehicle's FRAME. Wow...
>
> You were arguing more mass means more safety. I'll take that as yet
> another admission that you are wrong.
>
>>>> so I mentioned
>>>> that CAFE standards (which ARE being proposed for trucks and SUVs,
>>>> BTW) HAVE resulted in more deaths by the thousands in the U.S. (due
>>>> to LESS MASS in passenger cars and MORE DAMAGE in crashes.
>
>>> Mass that isn't used properly provides no protection, only more
>>> energy to cause damage. In older passenger cars the mass was used in
>>> such a way that it prevented intrusions into the passenger
>>> compartment. On an SUV the extra mass is used for off road
>>> capabilities, towing, and cargo carrying.
>
>>>> You're impersonating Flailor, aren't you? Good one!
>>>
>>> You just keep on showing that you have no clue at all. Probably why
>>> you hold the views you do, you were easily duped.
>
>> Get in your last word, P-brained. You're /flailing/ so much it's
>> causing me flashbacks.
>
>> Buh-bye, duh-bee. Next stop: fillkile!
>
> You wouldn't want basic engineering to get in the way of your
> emotional based views. Afterall, in your emotional based view of the
> world bicycle helmets offer significant measurable protection in the
> dangerous activity of bicycling. In the engineering based world they
> are rated for nothing more that a 6 foot fall and if bicycling
> justifies them by risk values so do a great deal of other everyday
> activities that most people consider safe.
You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not helmet
wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and emotions and
nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 01:12:52
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <6K7Ai.2118$7p6.901@trnddc01 >, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not helmet
> wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and emotions and
> nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
Oh I understand that this nation is full of control freak morons like
yourself. Too bad. It would have been nice to have the educated and
liberty minded population the founders seem to have wanted.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 13:30:01
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <6K7Ai.2118$7p6.901@trnddc01>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not helmet
>> wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and emotions and
>> nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
>
> Oh I understand that this nation is full of control freak morons like
> yourself. Too bad. It would have been nice to have the educated and
> liberty minded population the founders seem to have wanted.
The problem is that attitudes such as yours will allow the _real_
control freaks to be able to impose helmet laws on the rest of us.
You've got a group of health care professionals that have tunnel vision
because they work in emergency rooms where they see the difference in
injury levels and fatalities between helmets and unhelmeted cyclists,
skateboarders, etc. You can't dispute what the ER statistics show for
those injured seriously enough to seek ER care, as cited in this and
many other helmet threads. Furthermore, the ER statistics vastly
understate the helmet benefit because so many accidents end up not
requiring an ER visit because of helmet use, but it's impossible to
quantify the benefit.
If you want to fight helmet laws, fight them based on personal freedom
issues. Don't let the do-gooders that want to pass more laws to make
everything safe for everybody hijack the debate by letting them focus
solely on the tiny subset of the tiny number of accidents where there is
a head impact where a helmet would make a difference. This is the tiny
subset that the ER physicians see, and these people are listened to by
the public when they hear no coherent argument against helmets.
Whatever you do, don't show up at a public hearing with ludicrous
comparisons of driving helmets or walking helmets, or try to equate head
injury accidents with cancer, heart disease, ED, PMS, etc. You'll be
written off as a fool, and the do-gooders will win. The politicians are
not impressed or amused by these anecdotes or silly comparisons, however
clever the creators of that sort of crap think that they are.
The big difference in this debate is that some of us want to fight
helmet laws without attacking the results of the ER studies. Others are
not content to fight the helmet laws, but are somehow trying to prove
that their choice to not wear a helmet adds absolutely no risk to their
life. They take it as a personal affront whenever the safety advantage
of helmets in head-impact accidents is raised, rather than simply
stating that they are willing to accept that tiny amount of extra risk.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 19:38:58
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d1e282$0$27187$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, SMS wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <6K7Ai.2118$7p6.901@trnddc01>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not helmet
>>> wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and emotions and
>>> nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
>>
>> Oh I understand that this nation is full of control freak morons like
>> yourself. Too bad. It would have been nice to have the educated and
>> liberty minded population the founders seem to have wanted.
>
> The problem is that attitudes such as yours will allow the _real_
> control freaks to be able to impose helmet laws on the rest of us.
Oh this has got to be creative....
> You've got a group of health care professionals that have tunnel vision
> because they work in emergency rooms where they see the difference in
> injury levels and fatalities between helmets and unhelmeted cyclists,
> skateboarders, etc. You can't dispute what the ER statistics show for
> those injured seriously enough to seek ER care, as cited in this and
> many other helmet threads. Furthermore, the ER statistics vastly
> understate the helmet benefit because so many accidents end up not
> requiring an ER visit because of helmet use, but it's impossible to
> quantify the benefit.
How does this have anything to do with my desire to have liberty be the
goal instead of control freakism? Nothing.
> If you want to fight helmet laws, fight them based on personal freedom
> issues. Don't let the do-gooders that want to pass more laws to make
> everything safe for everybody hijack the debate by letting them focus
> solely on the tiny subset of the tiny number of accidents where there is
> a head impact where a helmet would make a difference. This is the tiny
> subset that the ER physicians see, and these people are listened to by
> the public when they hear no coherent argument against helmets.
I think I've made it clear that I oppose bicycle helmets on all grounds.
> Whatever you do, don't show up at a public hearing with ludicrous
> comparisons of driving helmets or walking helmets, or try to equate head
> injury accidents with cancer, heart disease, ED, PMS, etc. You'll be
> written off as a fool, and the do-gooders will win. The politicians are
> not impressed or amused by these anecdotes or silly comparisons, however
> clever the creators of that sort of crap think that they are.
Bicycling helmet laws decrease bicycling and to pretend there isn't a
health cost in that is just silly. What you apparently want is to narrow
the argument to such an extent that the sob stories will win out. After
all they tug at the emotions while everything else is statistics and
basic engineering.
> The big difference in this debate is that some of us want to fight
> helmet laws without attacking the results of the ER studies.
Good for you. I think you have me confused with someone else. But when
studies outright lie and you don't point that out, then they'll just lie
more. Good luck winning when the other side lies, you don't and don't
call them out on it.
> Others are
> not content to fight the helmet laws, but are somehow trying to prove
> that their choice to not wear a helmet adds absolutely no risk to their
> life. They take it as a personal affront whenever the safety advantage
> of helmets in head-impact accidents is raised, rather than simply
> stating that they are willing to accept that tiny amount of extra risk.
Maybe you can't read what I've written. I've stated several times that
the risk-benefit-ratio for a bicycle 'helmet' doesn't justify wearing
one. If I were to choose to wear one when biking I would have to choose
to wear one for so many activities it would be silly. Bicycling simply
isn't that dangerous and the benefit from helmets very slim. As I stated
before, I am over 6' tall, just falling over I am beyond the helmet's
capabilities.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 01:22:55
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> Maybe you can't read what I've written. I've stated several times that
> the risk-benefit-ratio for a bicycle 'helmet' doesn't justify wearing
> one. If I were to choose to wear one when biking I would have to choose
> to wear one for so many activities it would be silly. Bicycling simply
> isn't that dangerous and the benefit from helmets very slim. As I
stated
> before, I am over 6' tall, just falling over I am beyond the helmet's
> capabilities.
Here's a little something from one of the common cites:
"It is not cycling which is dangerous, but motor traffic."
Obviously the solution is to remove All non-motorized traffic from the
roads.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 20:51:58
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <PHpAi.1600$0_2.696@trndny07 >, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> Maybe you can't read what I've written. I've stated several times that
>> the risk-benefit-ratio for a bicycle 'helmet' doesn't justify wearing
>> one. If I were to choose to wear one when biking I would have to choose
>> to wear one for so many activities it would be silly. Bicycling simply
>> isn't that dangerous and the benefit from helmets very slim. As I
> stated
>> before, I am over 6' tall, just falling over I am beyond the helmet's
>> capabilities.
>
> Here's a little something from one of the common cites:
>
> "It is not cycling which is dangerous, but motor traffic."
>
> Obviously the solution is to remove All non-motorized traffic from the
> roads.
Go back under your bridge troll.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 03:34:19
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <PHpAi.1600$0_2.696@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you can't read what I've written. I've stated several times
>>> that the risk-benefit-ratio for a bicycle 'helmet' doesn't justify
>>> wearing one. If I were to choose to wear one when biking I would
>>> have to choose to wear one for so many activities it would be silly.
>>> Bicycling simply isn't that dangerous and the benefit from helmets
>>> very slim. As I
>> stated
>>> before, I am over 6' tall, just falling over I am beyond the
>>> helmet's capabilities.
>>
>> Here's a little something from one of the common cites:
>>
>> "It is not cycling which is dangerous, but motor traffic."
>>
>> Obviously the solution is to remove All non-motorized traffic from
>> the roads.
>
> Go back under your bridge troll.
>
>
>
Hey, it was in one of the cites your lot keeps yammering about.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:42:26
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <%CrAi.982$j23.30@trndny06 >, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <PHpAi.1600$0_2.696@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe you can't read what I've written. I've stated several times
>>>> that the risk-benefit-ratio for a bicycle 'helmet' doesn't justify
>>>> wearing one. If I were to choose to wear one when biking I would
>>>> have to choose to wear one for so many activities it would be silly.
>>>> Bicycling simply isn't that dangerous and the benefit from helmets
>>>> very slim. As I
>>> stated
>>>> before, I am over 6' tall, just falling over I am beyond the
>>>> helmet's capabilities.
>>>
>>> Here's a little something from one of the common cites:
>>>
>>> "It is not cycling which is dangerous, but motor traffic."
>>>
>>> Obviously the solution is to remove All non-motorized traffic from
>>> the roads.
>>
>> Go back under your bridge troll.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hey, it was in one of the cites your lot keeps yammering about.
You must be deeply confused, because I made no such cite. Go back under
your bridge.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 06:39:44
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <%CrAi.982$j23.30@trndny06>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <PHpAi.1600$0_2.696@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can't read what I've written. I've stated several times
>>>>> that the risk-benefit-ratio for a bicycle 'helmet' doesn't justify
>>>>> wearing one. If I were to choose to wear one when biking I would
>>>>> have to choose to wear one for so many activities it would be
>>>>> silly. Bicycling simply isn't that dangerous and the benefit from
>>>>> helmets very slim. As I
>>>> stated
>>>>> before, I am over 6' tall, just falling over I am beyond the
>>>>> helmet's capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a little something from one of the common cites:
>>>>
>>>> "It is not cycling which is dangerous, but motor traffic."
>>>>
>>>> Obviously the solution is to remove All non-motorized traffic from
>>>> the roads.
>>>
>>> Go back under your bridge troll.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hey, it was in one of the cites your lot keeps yammering about.
>
> You must be deeply confused, because I made no such cite. Go back
> under your bridge.
>
>
>
What part of 'your lot' didn't you understand?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 18:15:50
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent Pea-brained wrote:
> I think I've made it clear that I oppose bicycle helmets on all
> grounds.
Why do you GAF if I or anyone else wears a helmet? What a maroon.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 20:49:41
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d225d0$0$16476$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent Pea-brained wrote:
I see you're still being childish.
>> I think I've made it clear that I oppose bicycle helmets on all
>> grounds.
> Why do you GAF if I or anyone else wears a helmet?
I don't give a fuck if you or anyone else wears one. But several people
like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you stop being a
control freak and stop bothering people?
> What a maroon.
Name calling is about all you have left at this point. However your
reading comprehension shows who the maroon is. If you could read you
might have noticed I don't care who wears a helmet.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 20:06:44
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d225d0$0$16476$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent Pea-brained wrote:
>
> I see you're still being childish.
>
>>> I think I've made it clear that I oppose bicycle helmets on all
>>> grounds.
>
>> Why do you GAF if I or anyone else wears a helmet?
>
> I don't give a fuck if you or anyone else wears one. But several
> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you stop
> being a control freak and stop bothering people?
Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If you'd
written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds" I'd not've
commented.
>> What a maroon.
>
> Name calling is about all you have left at this point. However your
> reading comprehension shows who the maroon is. If you could read you
> might have noticed I don't care who wears a helmet.
Make you a deal: stop writing stupid things and I'll stop pointing them
out.
Bill "yeah, that'll happen" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:20:16
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d23fc7$0$11011$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you stop
>> being a control freak and stop bothering people?
> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If you'd
> written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds" I'd not've
> commented.
Bullshit. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet views
to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it your way.
>>> What a maroon.
>> Name calling is about all you have left at this point. However your
>> reading comprehension shows who the maroon is. If you could read you
>> might have noticed I don't care who wears a helmet.
> Make you a deal: stop writing stupid things and I'll stop pointing them
> out.
Nice bit of projection there.
> Bill "yeah, that'll happen" S.
Why don't you go find a bridge?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:07:11
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d23fc7$0$11011$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you stop
>>> being a control freak and stop bothering people?
>> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If you'd
>> written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds" I'd not've
>> commented.
>
> Bullshit. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet
> views to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it
> your way.
Dude, you truly are delusional and paranoid (quite the two-fer). I'm pro
the CHOICE to wear lids, and react to people who give those who do so grief.
I'm not in favor of MHLs.
Please, buy yourself a clue.
BS
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 00:21:05
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d25c01$0$24082$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <46d23fc7$0$11011$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you stop
>>>> being a control freak and stop bothering people?
>
>>> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If you'd
>>> written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds" I'd not've
>>> commented.
>>
>> Bullshit. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet
>> views to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it
>> your way.
>
> Dude, you truly are delusional and paranoid (quite the two-fer).
Yet more insults. You've been content free now for some time. Loser.
> I'm pro
> the CHOICE to wear lids, and react to people who give those who do so grief.
> I'm not in favor of MHLs.
Given your posts the only choice you respect is one that matches your
own.
> Please, buy yourself a clue.
Yet you have a problem with my views. Guess that makes you just a garden
variety troll. That's even worse.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 06:44:09
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <46d25c01$0$24082$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <46d23fc7$0$11011$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you
>>>>> stop being a control freak and stop bothering people?
>>
>>>> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If
>>>> you'd written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds"
>>>> I'd not've commented.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet
>>> views to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it
>>> your way.
>>
>> Dude, you truly are delusional and paranoid (quite the two-fer).
>
> Yet more insults. You've been content free now for some time. Loser.
>
>> I'm pro
>> the CHOICE to wear lids, and react to people who give those who do so
>> grief. I'm not in favor of MHLs.
>
> Given your posts the only choice you respect is one that matches your
> own.
>
>> Please, buy yourself a clue.
>
> Yet you have a problem with my views.
You are a TRUE BELIEVER. Only the Shriven would not seem to have a
problem with your views.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 21:59:50
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:30:01 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
said in <46d1e282$0$27187$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >:
>The problem is that attitudes such as yours will allow the _real_
>control freaks to be able to impose helmet laws on the rest of us.
So you say, but as it turns out it's people like Frank and I who
have successfully opposed helmet laws, whereas you have yet to show
any instance of law prevented by the approach you assert is the only
effective one.
Let's take an example: I've also not yet seen you rebut the
statistics for outcomes of helmet laws around the world showing that
not one has ever resulted in any provable reduction in cyclist head
injury rates. Why should we not point out to legislators that the
experiment they wish to repeat has failed every time it has been
tried? Why would it make sense not to tell them this? It is a well
documented fact and has been discussed in the medical and other
journals. What's the sense in *not* pointing this out?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 21:27:37
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> So you say, but as it turns out it's people like Frank and I who
> have successfully opposed helmet laws,
Really? I doubt it.
> whereas you have yet to show
> any instance of law prevented by the approach you assert is the only
> effective one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:48:34
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:27:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<dfmAi.966$j23.272@trndny06 >:
>> So you say, but as it turns out it's people like Frank and I who
>> have successfully opposed helmet laws,
>Really? I doubt it.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Martlew_bill
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:06:14
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:27:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in
> <dfmAi.966$j23.272@trndny06>:
>
>>> So you say, but as it turns out it's people like Frank and I who
>>> have successfully opposed helmet laws,
>
>>Really? I doubt it.
>
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Martlew_bill
And?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:31:24
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:06:14 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<qPmAi.5561$yv3.4598@trndny01 >:
>>>> So you say, but as it turns out it's people like Frank and I who
>>>> have successfully opposed helmet laws,
>>>Really? I doubt it.
>> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Martlew_bill
>And?
And then stop asserting that the approach which worked, doesn't
work.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 22:32:24
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:06:14 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> said in
> <qPmAi.5561$yv3.4598@trndny01>:
>
>>>>> So you say, but as it turns out it's people like Frank and I who
>>>>> have successfully opposed helmet laws,
>>>>Really? I doubt it.
>>> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Martlew_bill
>>And?
>
> And then stop asserting that the approach which worked, doesn't
> work.
What proof is there that it did work?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 07:58:20
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:32:24 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > said in
<YhIAi.22$J65.18@trndny08 >:
>> And then stop asserting that the approach which worked, doesn't
>> work.
>What proof is there that it did work?
No helmet law.
But since you've now decided to go down the "proof" line, how about
you cite the proof that helmet laws reduce head injury rates, or
that helmet wearing has reduced head injury rates in any real
cyclist population?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 07:27:31
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <6K7Ai.2118$7p6.901@trnddc01>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not
>> helmet wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and
>> emotions and nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
>
> Oh I understand that this nation is full of control freak morons like
> yourself.
Ah, but I'm not. I'm all in favor of you doing WTF you want. As long as
you Accept Responsibility for your actions. You seem unwilling to do
that. You by chance a Democrat?
> Too bad. It would have been nice to have the educated and
> liberty minded population the founders seem to have wanted.
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 19:27:01
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <DX9Ai.1419$0_2.892@trndny07 >, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <6K7Ai.2118$7p6.901@trnddc01>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not
>>> helmet wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and
>>> emotions and nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
>>
>> Oh I understand that this nation is full of control freak morons like
>> yourself.
>
> Ah, but I'm not. I'm all in favor of you doing WTF you want. As long as
> you Accept Responsibility for your actions. You seem unwilling to do
> that. You by chance a Democrat?
I take it you do not have any form of health insurance yourself and pay
cash, right?
The problem with the system created by the socialist control freaks is
that the costs of paying cash have skyrocketed out of control. It's what
happens when things are socialized either through government or
insurance.
But when you can prove bicycling without a helmet is an actual risk
greater than everyday living and bicycling without a helmet isn't a net
benefit, then we can talk. Trouble is, it's already been proven that
bicycling is a net benefit with or without a helmet and that bicycling
without a helmet is MUCH less a risk than everyday living.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 01:21:06
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <DX9Ai.1419$0_2.892@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <6K7Ai.2118$7p6.901@trnddc01>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not
>>>> helmet wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and
>>>> emotions and nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
>>>
>>> Oh I understand that this nation is full of control freak morons
>>> like yourself.
>>
>> Ah, but I'm not. I'm all in favor of you doing WTF you want. As long
>> as you Accept Responsibility for your actions. You seem unwilling to
>> do that. You by chance a Democrat?
>
> I take it you do not have any form of health insurance yourself and
> pay cash, right?
Wrong. Though the deductable and copay are high.
>
> The problem with the system created by the socialist control freaks is
> that the costs of paying cash have skyrocketed out of control. It's
> what happens when things are socialized either through government or
> insurance.
>
> But when you can prove bicycling without a helmet is an actual risk
> greater than everyday living and bicycling without a helmet isn't a
> net benefit, then we can talk. Trouble is, it's already been proven
> that bicycling is a net benefit with or without a helmet and that
> bicycling without a helmet is MUCH less a risk than everyday living.
Trouble is, that does not matter.
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 20:51:09
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <6GpAi.1599$0_2.47@trndny07 >, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <DX9Ai.1419$0_2.892@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <6K7Ai.2118$7p6.901@trnddc01>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not
>>>>> helmet wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and
>>>>> emotions and nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is Reality.
>>>>
>>>> Oh I understand that this nation is full of control freak morons
>>>> like yourself.
>>>
>>> Ah, but I'm not. I'm all in favor of you doing WTF you want. As long
>>> as you Accept Responsibility for your actions. You seem unwilling to
>>> do that. You by chance a Democrat?
>>
>> I take it you do not have any form of health insurance yourself and
>> pay cash, right?
>
> Wrong. Though the deductable and copay are high.
So you're a hypocrite then. You demand others pay for themselves but you
get to have insurance.
>> The problem with the system created by the socialist control freaks is
>> that the costs of paying cash have skyrocketed out of control. It's
>> what happens when things are socialized either through government or
>> insurance.
>>
>> But when you can prove bicycling without a helmet is an actual risk
>> greater than everyday living and bicycling without a helmet isn't a
>> net benefit, then we can talk. Trouble is, it's already been proven
>> that bicycling is a net benefit with or without a helmet and that
>> bicycling without a helmet is MUCH less a risk than everyday living.
>
> Trouble is, that does not matter.
Only your control freakism and trolling. Find a better hobby, preferably
something constructive.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 03:32:32
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <6GpAi.1599$0_2.47@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <DX9Ai.1419$0_2.892@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6K7Ai.2118$7p6.901@trnddc01>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are another one who needs to understand that whether or not
>>>>>> helmet wearing becomes law has everything to do with politics and
>>>>>> emotions and nothing to do with engineering. Perception Is
>>>>>> Reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh I understand that this nation is full of control freak morons
>>>>> like yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, but I'm not. I'm all in favor of you doing WTF you want. As
>>>> long as you Accept Responsibility for your actions. You seem
>>>> unwilling to do that. You by chance a Democrat?
>>>
>>> I take it you do not have any form of health insurance yourself and
>>> pay cash, right?
>>
>> Wrong. Though the deductable and copay are high.
>
> So you're a hypocrite then. You demand others pay for themselves but
> you get to have insurance.
Read what I Wrote. Not what you Think I wrote. Insurance is One way of
being responsible. Cash is another.
>
>>> The problem with the system created by the socialist control freaks
>>> is that the costs of paying cash have skyrocketed out of control.
>>> It's what happens when things are socialized either through
>>> government or insurance.
>>>
>>> But when you can prove bicycling without a helmet is an actual risk
>>> greater than everyday living and bicycling without a helmet isn't a
>>> net benefit, then we can talk. Trouble is, it's already been proven
>>> that bicycling is a net benefit with or without a helmet and that
>>> bicycling without a helmet is MUCH less a risk than everyday living.
>>
>> Trouble is, that does not matter.
>
> Only your control freakism and trolling. Find a better hobby,
> preferably something constructive.
No, it just does Not matter. It is a POLITICAL ISSUE.
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:41:31
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <kBrAi.981$j23.482@trndny06 >, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Read what I Wrote. Not what you Think I wrote. Insurance is One way of
> being responsible. Cash is another.
So you're just trolling then.
>> Only your control freakism and trolling. Find a better hobby,
>> preferably something constructive.
> No, it just does Not matter. It is a POLITICAL ISSUE.
The problem with the USA is that everything is made into a "POLITICAL
ISSUE", hence everything becomes shit.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 06:38:51
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <kBrAi.981$j23.482@trndny06>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> Read what I Wrote. Not what you Think I wrote. Insurance is One way
>> of being responsible. Cash is another.
>
> So you're just trolling then.
No. Paying for insurance is One way of being responsible.
>
>>> Only your control freakism and trolling. Find a better hobby,
>>> preferably something constructive.
>
>> No, it just does Not matter. It is a POLITICAL ISSUE.
>
> The problem with the USA is that everything is made into a "POLITICAL
> ISSUE", hence everything becomes shit.
If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political Issue.
Everywhere. Deal with it.
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 20:03:45
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <6GpAi.1599$0_2.47@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <DX9Ai.1419$0_2.892@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> Ah, but I'm not. I'm all in favor of you doing WTF you want. As
>>>> long as you Accept Responsibility for your actions. You seem
>>>> unwilling to do that. You by chance a Democrat?
{Question never answered, of course}
>>> I take it you do not have any form of health insurance yourself and
>>> pay cash, right?
>> Wrong. Though the deductable and copay are high.
> So you're a hypocrite then. You demand others pay for themselves but
> you get to have insurance.
GET to have insurance?!? Wow, you're a whiner on top of everything else!
LOL
Bill "Pea-brained Brent just keeps topping himself" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:08:40
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d23f19$0$16447$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <6GpAi.1599$0_2.47@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <DX9Ai.1419$0_2.892@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>>>>> Ah, but I'm not. I'm all in favor of you doing WTF you want. As
>>>>> long as you Accept Responsibility for your actions. You seem
>>>>> unwilling to do that. You by chance a Democrat?
>
> {Question never answered, of course}
Why the fuck should I answer it? You and the rest ignore stuff
consistantly and my politics are well known. (Hint: I think the
republicans and democrats are effectively a single party)
>>>> I take it you do not have any form of health insurance yourself and
>>>> pay cash, right?
>>> Wrong. Though the deductable and copay are high.
>
>> So you're a hypocrite then. You demand others pay for themselves but
>> you get to have insurance.
> GET to have insurance?!? Wow, you're a whiner on top of everything else!
> LOL
I see your ability to follow along is as piss poor as ever.
> Bill "Pea-brained Brent just keeps topping himself" S.
I see you still have to keep trolling with insults to try and save face.
Go find a bridge and crawl under it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 21:48:29
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46d0f914$0$16472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P-brained wrote:
>
> Each time you sink to new lows.
>
>> The word is "rationale", and people can read the thread and see that
>> I'm right.
>
> No, they can see you're someone who easily falls for bullshit.
Well, I /have/ been arguing with you. LOL
>> Again. (Hint: I made a comment about helmets, and you
>> extrapolated -- nice word for tortured the logic -- to SUVs. You're
>> an over-emotional ideologue who can't keep your subjects -- much
>> less facts -- straight.)
>
> You're the one who started spewing the bullshit of a 'security mom'. I
> only pointed it out.
Fabricate much? I said a barrier between my skull and pavement is a good,
beneficial thing. Period. Had NOTHING to do with SUVs, hot soccer moms
with large pompoms, etc.
You're truly delusional.
>>>> (Non-sequitur describes it much
>>>> better.) The FACT is more steel DOES mean better protection,
>
>>> Wrong. Put steel ignots in the trunk of your car. How much
>>> protection did you add? Put them in the back seat without securing
>>> them and you've actually put yourself at risk.
>
>> Can't argue with THAT! LOL A carved out pumpkin strapped to your
>> head -- while an improvement in appearance AND smell in your case --
>> won't offer much protection, either. Gold bricks in the back seat
>> ain't the same as a vehicle's FRAME. Wow...
>
> You were arguing more mass means more safety. I'll take that as yet
> another admission that you are wrong.
Mass in /design/, MENSA, not thrown in the back seat. ROTFL
>>>> so I mentioned
>>>> that CAFE standards (which ARE being proposed for trucks and SUVs,
>>>> BTW) HAVE resulted in more deaths by the thousands in the U.S. (due
>>>> to LESS MASS in passenger cars and MORE DAMAGE in crashes.
>
>>> Mass that isn't used properly provides no protection, only more
>>> energy to cause damage. In older passenger cars the mass was used
>>> in such a way that it prevented intrusions into the passenger
>>> compartment. On an SUV the extra mass is used for off road
>>> capabilities, towing, and cargo carrying.
>
>>>> You're impersonating Flailor, aren't you? Good one!
>>>
>>> You just keep on showing that you have no clue at all. Probably why
>>> you hold the views you do, you were easily duped.
>
>> Get in your last word, P-brained. You're /flailing/ so much it's
>> causing me flashbacks.
>
>> Buh-bye, duh-bee. Next stop: fillkile!
>
> You wouldn't want basic engineering to get in the way of your
> emotional based views. Afterall, in your emotional based view of the
> world bicycle helmets offer significant measurable protection in the
> dangerous
> activity of bicycling. In the engineering based world they are rated
> for nothing more that a 6 foot fall and if bicycling justifies them
> by risk values so do a great deal of other everyday activities that
> most people consider safe.
Hey moron, if you want to fall off your bike while descending a steep road
without protection, have at it. Who's stopping ya?!?
Bill "really has been fun, but you're growing quite tiresome" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2007 01:11:32
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
In article <46d10623$0$18997$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson wrote:
>> You're the one who started spewing the bullshit of a 'security mom'. I
>> only pointed it out.
> Fabricate much? I said a barrier between my skull and pavement is a good,
> beneficial thing. Period. Had NOTHING to do with SUVs, hot soccer moms
> with large pompoms, etc.
You're the one with the fantasies here.
> You're truly delusional.
Nice projection.
>>> Can't argue with THAT! LOL A carved out pumpkin strapped to your
>>> head -- while an improvement in appearance AND smell in your case --
>>> won't offer much protection, either. Gold bricks in the back seat
>>> ain't the same as a vehicle's FRAME. Wow...
>> You were arguing more mass means more safety. I'll take that as yet
>> another admission that you are wrong.
> Mass in /design/, MENSA, not thrown in the back seat. ROTFL
backpeddling.
>>>>> so I mentioned
>>>>> that CAFE standards (which ARE being proposed for trucks and SUVs,
>>>>> BTW) HAVE resulted in more deaths by the thousands in the U.S. (due
>>>>> to LESS MASS in passenger cars and MORE DAMAGE in crashes.
>>>> Mass that isn't used properly provides no protection, only more
>>>> energy to cause damage. In older passenger cars the mass was used
>>>> in such a way that it prevented intrusions into the passenger
>>>> compartment. On an SUV the extra mass is used for off road
>>>> capabilities, towing, and cargo carrying.
>>>>> You're impersonating Flailor, aren't you? Good one!
>>>>
>>>> You just keep on showing that you have no clue at all. Probably why
>>>> you hold the views you do, you were easily duped.
>>
>>> Get in your last word, P-brained. You're /flailing/ so much it's
>>> causing me flashbacks.
>>
>>> Buh-bye, duh-bee. Next stop: fillkile!
>> You wouldn't want basic engineering to get in the way of your
>> emotional based views. Afterall, in your emotional based view of the
>> world bicycle helmets offer significant measurable protection in the
>> dangerous
>> activity of bicycling. In the engineering based world they are rated
>> for nothing more that a 6 foot fall and if bicycling justifies them
>> by risk values so do a great deal of other everyday activities that
>> most people consider safe.
> Hey moron, if you want to fall off your bike while descending a steep road
> without protection, have at it. Who's stopping ya?!?
Here you go again with the magic hat nonsense. A bicycle helmet's
ability to protect my head is exceed if I simply fall while standing.
Whatever comes from falling while riding down a steep hill is still going
to do whatever damage beyond scrapes to the top of my head it was going
to do helmet or not.
> Bill "really has been fun, but you're growing quite tiresome" S.
Translation: I am not responding in kind to you and you don't have any
facts.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 17:20:05
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:43:59 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
said in <46d04e45$0$23595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >:
>Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph with
>huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster?
Have you ever looked at the tests to which helmets are subjected
(and routinely fail)? A 45mph crash, or one involving a motor
vehicle, is so far outside these parameters as to make your rhetoric
worse than simply fatuous, and put it into the category of
dangerously misleading.
Incidentally, the leading cause of cyclist deaths in London (a
well-studied city) is crushing by turning goods vehicles. Few if
any of these cyclists die of head injury, but a lot of them are
wearing helmets. The ones that aren't, the press often make a point
of mentioning it. Presumably they believe, as Thompson, Rivara and
Thompson evidently do, that helmets prevent almost all non head
injuries as well...
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 00:10:22
From: Just zis Guy, you know?
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:04:18 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
said in <46cf478a$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >:
>There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
>knows not of what they speak:
One of which is that they are Steven M Scharf.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 16:03:24
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
SMS wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> You don't discredit anyone by refusing to confront the argument and
>> instead simply sneering at them.
>
> LOL, it's up them to come up with coherent arguments against all the
> ER studies, not up to me to respond to incoherent babbling.
>
> You're going to have to accept that there will not be a double-blind
> study of injury severity after head-impact accidents, with and without
> helmets. Once you understand that, you can move forward and accept the
> ER studies even though they are not perfect. But understand that they
> are imperfect in a way that actually understates their benefit,
> because of all the ER visits that are avoided in the first place.
>
> As others have stated, the number of head-impact accidents where a
> helmet would make a difference is very small, simply because the
> number of head impact accidents is very small. There is no need for
> compulsion. It's a personal freedom issue of how much risk you want
> to accept. For some reason, this isn't good enough for some AHZ's,
> they really want to convince themselves that the helmet provides no
> protection at all.
> There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
> knows not of what they speak:
>
> 1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
> believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
> somehow worthless.
>
> 2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
> driving or walking.
>
> 3. They mis-use "self-selection" in an attempt to "prove" that the ER
> studies must be false because the believe, with no evidence, that a
> helmeted cyclist is more likely to visit the ER after a head-impact
> crash.
> 4. They demand double-blind surveys and tests, knowing full well that
> it isn't possible (or at least not ethical) to perform them.
>
> 5. The try to work in cancer, PMS, ED, or other medical conditions.
>
> You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
> by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
> the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.
POTT. (Thread.)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 16:56:36
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
>> You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
>> by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
>> the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.
>
> POTT. (Thread.)
Huh?
Doesn't appear in the list of Usenet acronyms.
In any case, the chance of getting the AHZ's to actually read all the
studies is about nil. Myself and others have provided endless
references, citations, studies etc., but it always comes down to
half-witted attacks on the studies because they aren't "scientific
enough". This is followed by endless speculation as to what might have
occurred for the study data to have come out as it did. We're not even
talking conclusions drawn from the data, we're talking about specious
speculation about how the data just _can't_ be right, because it doesn't
show what the AHZ's want it to show.
I have to give the AHZ's credit. They keep plugging along even when
people that are far better informed keep posting referenced facts
regarding the subject. They've long since given up on fact-based
argument. They remind me of our precious president, who foolishly let
Karl Rove go, and who now can't lie half as good as he was lying before.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 17:08:18
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>> You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner,
>>> not by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that
>>> actually see the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.
>>
>> POTT. (Thread.)
>
> Huh?
>
> Doesn't appear in the list of Usenet acronyms.
Post Of The Thread. Var. of POTW, POTM, POTY, etc. (I tried to make it
clear with, "Thread.")
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 14:46:54
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
On Aug 21, 4:01 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
>
> And not really pro. Been cycling for 55+ years and have yet to wear one.
>
You don't wear one, yet you seem to be very pro-lid.
I'm not anti-lid, but I am very anti-mhl.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 03:29:34
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
Marz <marzjennings@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 4:01 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> And not really pro. Been cycling for 55+ years and have yet to wear
>> one.
>>
>
>
> You don't wear one, yet you seem to be very pro-lid.
>
> I'm not anti-lid, but I am very anti-mhl.
I'm very anti pompous gasbags who "know" more than everyone else.
I did own a helmet once. Wife insisted. It gathered dust. Don't really
like hats of any sort.
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 08:36:08
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
Marz wrote:
> On Aug 21, 4:01 am, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> And not really pro. Been cycling for 55+ years and have yet to wear
>> one.
>>
>
>
> You don't wear one, yet you seem to be very pro-lid.
Actually, he seems more anti-AHZ. (And who can blame him? LOL )
> I'm not anti-lid, but I am very anti-mhl.
I'm pro-lid, but anti-MHL (as are most, I suspect).
What I don't get is the /pathetic emotionalism/ of the AHZs -- especially
ironic since they purport to have such a detached, scientific basis for
their opinions (which is all they are, after all -- opinions).
Rather sad, really.
Bill "weeping not" S.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 05:56:56
From: Paul Berg
Subject: Case to go to grand jury
|
~
News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 21, 2007
A 47-year-old driver could face a minimum 71/2 years in prison if
convicted of mowing down and hospitalizing two cyclists with his car in
Southeast Portland last Friday.
Johnny Jerry Eschweiler was arraigned Monday in Multnomah County Circuit
Court on two counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of
second-degree assault -- the latter are Measure 11 crimes with mandatory
minimum sentences. Police say Eschweiler intentionally struck cyclists
Ben Ramsdell, 25, and Timothy Mastne, 42, with his car in the 1000 block
of Southeast Clinton Street.
The charges drew widespread support from the metro-area bicycling
community.
Police spokesman Brian Schmautz said Eschweiler got into an argument
with Ramsdell about 12:30 p.m. while Ramsdell was pedaling west toward
the Willamette River. Schmautz didn't have details of how the argument
began.
Ramsdell, who remained hospitalized Monday at Oregon Health & Science
University, declined to be interviewed through a hospital spokeswoman.
But according to BikePortland.org, Ramsdell told blogger Jonathan Maus
on Saturday that Eschweiler drove within half an inch of his handlebars
and that he caught up with Eschweiler's car at the next stop. Ramsdell
said he tapped on the glass and told Eschweiler he was upset with him
for nearly hitting him. He said he might have sworn at Eschweiler, and
that Eschweiler responded with an offensive hand gesture.
"The next thing I knew I was in the ambulance," Ramsdell told Maus.
Ramsdell said he suffered a broken finger, a broken nose and 30 stitches
to his face.
According to police, Mastne was cycling in the opposite direction when
he was struck by Eschweiler's car at the same time and location as
Ramsdell. Mastne was hospitalized with more minor injuries, including
road rash, Schmautz said. Mastne could not be reached for comment.
Schmautz said neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
The incident spurred passionate debate -- about the inattention of
metro-area motorists, about the proper response of cyclists to it and
road rage -- among cyclists and drivers alike.
Karl Rohde, public affairs director at the nonprofit Bicycle
Transportation Alliance, said although he wasn't aware of the exact
circumstances that led to the crash, his organization advises against
bicyclists confronting motorists. Instead, bicyclists should report
dangerous drivers, and their license plates, to police, he said.
"The hope is that you can take the high road and not get into a
confrontation," Rohde said. "Because in confrontations between cars and
bikes, the cars win."
But, Rohde added, nothing that Ramsdell said could have said warranted
Eschweiler's violent response.
A grand jury is scheduled to review Eschweiler's case this week. If
jurors agree that there's adequate evidence against him, he will
formally be charged next week.
~
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 03:24:03
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Case to go to grand jury
|
pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote:
> But, Rohde added, nothing that Ramsdell said could have said warranted
> Eschweiler's violent response.
>
> A grand jury is scheduled to review Eschweiler's case this week. If
> jurors agree that there's adequate evidence against him, he will
> formally be charged next week.
The one thing missing in all this: The Driver's Story.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 21:43:20
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: Case to go to grand jury
|
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote:
>>But, Rohde added, nothing that Ramsdell said could have said warranted
>>Eschweiler's violent response.
>>A grand jury is scheduled to review Eschweiler's case this week. If
>>jurors agree that there's adequate evidence against him, he will
>>formally be charged next week.
> The one thing missing in all this: The Driver's Story.
You ain't gonna hear it anytime soon. Iffen his lawyer is at all
compentent, his instructions are something along the lines of, "from
here on in, you keep your mouth shut and talk only to ME!"
Peace and justice,
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 10:13:01
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Case to go to grand jury
|
In article <3869-46CAE118-1234@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net >, Paul Berg wrote:
> Karl Rohde, public affairs director at the nonprofit Bicycle
> Transportation Alliance, said although he wasn't aware of the exact
> circumstances that led to the crash, his organization advises against
> bicyclists confronting motorists. Instead, bicyclists should report
> dangerous drivers, and their license plates, to police, he said.
I'd have to say for most things, like garden variety brush passing,
calling the cops is just plain useless and not needed. Using the police
IMO causes more long term harm. Instead of society being able to function
and social correction to work it is authority that comes in with it's own
motivations. I've found that cops are just as likely to blame the
bicyclist for just using the road. That if a bicyclist didn't want to be
brush passed he should get off the road.
> "The hope is that you can take the high road and not get into a
> confrontation," Rohde said. "Because in confrontations between cars and
> bikes, the cars win."
The cars win if the bicyclist doesn't know how to handle it. Letting a
driver know they nearly hit you gets two basic forms of response. Apology
and 'fuck you'. When you get an apology it's fine... live and let live
they will be more alert or understand that they need to give more space in
the future (hopefully). When you get 'fuck you' he probably passed close
on purpose and this means not getting in front of this driver again.
There is little they can do when in front and what they can do can be
avoided.
The avoid 'confrontation' or 'just let them do it' concept only causes
these arseholes to continue and increase their poor behaviors. It applies
as much to driver-bicyclist as driver-driver.
> A grand jury is scheduled to review Eschweiler's case this week. If
> jurors agree that there's adequate evidence against him, he will
> formally be charged next week.
Guess this driver didn't follow the magic words instructions.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 02:48:53
From:
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Some Girl wrote:
>
> > Not really. There have been a few times when I've been hugging the
> > lane as far to the right as possible, but was still being crowded in
> > by an inattentive driver.
>
> You got crowded BECAUSE you rode too far right. If you ride far right,
> you are encourgaging them to squeeze by. Use more of the lane and that
> problem is greatly reduced. Riding further into the lane makes you more
> visible, and forces motorists to adjust to you.
>
> Wayne
I believe that making motorists adjust 'to your riding habits' means
you are doing it wrong.
however,
I think you use, what do they call them? (ten speeds)
Best bet in this (my) thinking, is that your bicycle doesn't really
like the far right?
I was thinking about this, a, well, I use sidewalks, I use the road, I
use whatever to get around.
I woke up early, one morning, and I guess hundreds of bicyclers in my
camping.
I wished I was doing what they were doing.
It was difficult to get past them, but they are you, and I.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 13:28:06
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
cattanack@yahoo.com wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>You got crowded BECAUSE you rode too far right. If you ride far right,
>>you are encourgaging them to squeeze by. Use more of the lane and that
>>problem is greatly reduced. Riding further into the lane makes you more
>>visible, and forces motorists to adjust to you.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
> I believe that making motorists adjust 'to your riding habits' means
> you are doing it wrong.
Motorists adjust to other motor vehicles, including those that are going
slower, very much slower (front loaders, those starting out or slowing
to turn, trucks climbing hills, etc.), or stopped (at lights, busses,
delivery vehicles, etc.). Adjusting to bicycle drivers is just part are
the deal.
Wayne
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 13:54:47
From: Arif Khokar
Subject: Re: Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
|
cattanack@yahoo.com wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> You got crowded BECAUSE you rode too far right. If you ride far right,
>> you are encourgaging them to squeeze by. Use more of the lane and that
>> problem is greatly reduced. Riding further into the lane makes you more
>> visible, and forces motorists to adjust to you.
> I believe that making motorists adjust 'to your riding habits' means
> you are doing it wrong.
As a driver, I see nothing wrong with treating a cyclist who is
following the rules of the road like another car. I also see nothing
wrong with giving them the whole lane when I pass them. I expect the
same when I'm riding.
I do see something wrong with riders who don't follow the rules of the
road. As a pedestrian, I detest sidewalk riders. As a driver, I hate
having to deal with cyclists who seemingly pop out of nowhere because
they couldn't be troubled to follow the rules of the road.
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 22:49:17
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
In article <N_tyi.2755$nB3.1213@trndny02 >,
>> No, it's assholes like you who want to give
>> cycling a bad name.
>
> I wasn't talking about You.
Weaseelism.
> And they sure do give it a bad name. They're the Block the Road types.
Bicycles blocking the roads!!?
Yeah, right. Those fat-assed bikes, with the
volume of a PT Cruiser or Ford Excursion or
1-ton cube van. Kinda like canoes blocking
trans-oceanic freighters from coming into the
port. Those goddamn'd huge canoes, blocking stuff
and interrupting traffic ...
Havta walk around 'em at intersections when
they block the sidewalk and prevent pedestrians
from getting from A to B.
Your POVs block each other as well as everybody else,
and you know it.
Bikes blocking the road!!??? <snort/sniggle/guffaw >
Man, you're such a total idjit.
In some ways, you're even amusing & funny.
Bikes blocking the roads. pffffttttt!
Please try to grow a brain.
Or at least, in the meantime, please don't try
to act like you have one.
Go pop some more microwave popcorn, 'n see
whatever's on TV.
Maybe Disorderly Conduct is on.
I love you, and I don't know why.
Actually, skip growing the brain.
We don't need brains, since pocket
calculators were invented.
Grow a heart instead.
That's what this world so desperately needs.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 09:00:28
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <N_tyi.2755$nB3.1213@trndny02>,
>
>>> No, it's assholes like you who want to give
>>> cycling a bad name.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about You.
>
> Weaseelism.
>
>> And they sure do give it a bad name. They're the Block the Road
>> types.
>
> Bicycles blocking the roads!!?
>
> Yeah, right. Those fat-assed bikes, with the
> volume of a PT Cruiser or Ford Excursion or
> 1-ton cube van. Kinda like canoes blocking
> trans-oceanic freighters from coming into the
> port. Those goddamn'd huge canoes, blocking stuff
> and interrupting traffic ...
>
>
> Havta walk around 'em at intersections when
> they block the sidewalk and prevent pedestrians
> from getting from A to B.
>
> Your POVs block each other as well as everybody else,
> and you know it.
>
> Bikes blocking the road!!??? <snort/sniggle/guffaw>
>
> Man, you're such a total idjit.
> In some ways, you're even amusing & funny.
>
> Bikes blocking the roads. pffffttttt!
See Portland during In Your Face Bikes Week.
>
> Please try to grow a brain.
But here we mow 'em down. Two in the past week!
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:23:30
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
In article <l5syi.1927$wr3.204@trndny04 >,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > writes:
> Ya know, it's assholes like you and Tommy that give cycling a Bad Name.
No, it's assholes like you who want to give
cycling a bad name.
You oughta be ashamed of yourself for being less than a Man.
Or even some kind of half-ways decent human being.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:38:38
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <l5syi.1927$wr3.204@trndny04>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> Ya know, it's assholes like you and Tommy that give cycling a Bad
>> Name.
>
> No, it's assholes like you who want to give
> cycling a bad name.
He was right about Frank. (Tommy's just annoying but not the arrogant
pompous gasbag that is Frankie K.)
> You oughta be ashamed of yourself for being less than a Man.
> Or even some kind of half-ways decent human being.
Wow. Just because he's pro-lid? (I don't follow these threads any more;
too fucking boring.)
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 09:01:49
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <l5syi.1927$wr3.204@trndny04>,
>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> Ya know, it's assholes like you and Tommy that give cycling a Bad
>>> Name.
>>
>> No, it's assholes like you who want to give
>> cycling a bad name.
>
> He was right about Frank. (Tommy's just annoying but not the arrogant
> pompous gasbag that is Frankie K.)
>
>> You oughta be ashamed of yourself for being less than a Man.
>> Or even some kind of half-ways decent human being.
>
> Wow. Just because he's pro-lid? (I don't follow these threads any
> more; too fucking boring.)
And not really pro. Been cycling for 55+ years and have yet to wear one.
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 04:38:05
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <l5syi.1927$wr3.204@trndny04>,
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> Ya know, it's assholes like you and Tommy that give cycling a Bad Name.
>
> No, it's assholes like you who want to give
> cycling a bad name.
I wasn't talking about You.
And they sure do give it a bad name. They're the Block the Road types.
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58
From: Paul Berg
Subject: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think that
|
~
News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a bicyclist
during a case of road rage.
According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast Portland.
They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then followed
Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.
"I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over with
our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend, Jon
Barber.
Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
scrapes.
Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing the
road.
"The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with Portland
Police Bureau.
A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the path of
the collision.
He suffered road rash all over his body.
Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree assault and
attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.
~
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 07:51:46
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think that defense will fly)
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
wrote:
>~
>
>News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
>
>Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
>
>Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a bicyclist
>during a case of road rage.
>
....
>Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing the
>road.
Heh! Really poor Impulse Control. Guys like that ought not to be
driving at all.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 03:17:52
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think that defense will fly)
|
Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
> wrote:
>
>>~
>>
>>News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
>>
>>Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
>>
>>Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
>>bicyclist during a case of road rage.
>>
> ....
>>Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
>>the road.
>
> Heh! Really poor Impulse Control. Guys like that ought not to be
> driving at all.
>
And just how would you propose making that happen?
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:10:29
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think that defense will fly)
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:17:52 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>~
>>>
>>>News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
>>>
>>>Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
>>>
>>>Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
>>>bicyclist during a case of road rage.
>>>
>> ....
>>>Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
>>>the road.
>>
>> Heh! Really poor Impulse Control. Guys like that ought not to be
>> driving at all.
>>
>And just how would you propose making that happen?
His mother, wife or girlfriend could take away his car keys.
But if he Cannot control his impulses, then the only outcome is to
accept that he Will do something stupid, sooner or later, and deal
with the consequences.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 02:03:43
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think that defense will fly)
|
Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:17:52 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>~
>>>>
>>>>News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
>>>>
>>>>Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
>>>>
>>>>Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
>>>>bicyclist during a case of road rage.
>>>>
>>> ....
>>>>Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
>>>>the road.
>>>
>>> Heh! Really poor Impulse Control. Guys like that ought not to be
>>> driving at all.
>>>
>>And just how would you propose making that happen?
>
> His mother, wife or girlfriend could take away his car keys.
>
> But if he Cannot control his impulses, then the only outcome is to
> accept that he Will do something stupid, sooner or later, and deal
> with the consequences.
>
IOW, you Don't Know.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:53:44
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think thatdefense will fly)
|
Paul Berg wrote:
> ~
>
> News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
>
> Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
>
> Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
> bicyclist during a case of road rage.
>
> According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
> 25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast Portland.
>
> They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then followed
> Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.
>
> "I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over with
> our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend, Jon
> Barber.
>
> Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
> scrapes.
>
> Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
> the road.
>
> "The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
> bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
> motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with
> Portland Police Bureau.
>
> A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the path
> of the collision.
>
> He suffered road rash all over his body.
> Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree assault
> and attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.
WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone over on
purpose?!?
Sheesh...
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 14:01:08
From: Neutral Observer
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think thatdefense will fly)
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
>
>WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone over on
>purpose?!?
>
>Sheesh...
>
I think it has to do with the property aspect of the crime and what
can be proven. From the story, it seems like he tried to hit the
first, but thats not so clear for the second.
If Bob throws a beer bottle at Betty and accidentally hits my car
windsheild, it can be attempted assault on her, but I have no claim
since he wasnt intending to hit my car (at least in many places). If
the driver were to claim he was just trying to pay back the rider he
thought kicked his car, it makes the case more difficult.
With attempted assault the case is easier because they can avoid all
that and simply go based on the fact that his actions could have
caused great bodily injury to 2 riders (who werent wearing helmets as
every iteration of the story makes clear).
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 07:44:20
From:
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think thatdefense will fly)
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:53:44 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>Paul Berg wrote:
>> ~
>>
>> News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
>>
>> Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
>>
>> Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
>> bicyclist during a case of road rage.
>>
>> According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
>> 25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast Portland.
>>
>> They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then followed
>> Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.
>>
>> "I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over with
>> our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend, Jon
>> Barber.
Hello wake up dip shit cyclists everywhere.....getting into a
disagreement with someone in a car and then being aggressive and
taking matters into your own hands.
Kicking cars or hitting cars while u are on a cycle is akin to having
an air gun and taking on someone with an shotgun. The car will win
everytime.
Maybe next time the testerone gorged cyclist will be able to channel
his aggressions into more peaceful pursuits. He must be a republican
who thinks violence is the answer to everything haha.
Don't take matters into your own hands.....things get out of control.
>>
>> Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
>> scrapes.
>>
>> Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
>> the road.
>>
>> "The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
>> bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
>> motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with
>> Portland Police Bureau.
>>
>> A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the path
>> of the collision.
>>
>> He suffered road rash all over his body.
>> Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree assault
>> and attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.
>
>WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone over on
>purpose?!?
>
>Sheesh...
>
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 07:43:51
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think thatdefense will fly)
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
:: Paul Berg wrote:
::: ~
:::
::: News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
:::
::: Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
:::
::: Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
::: bicyclist during a case of road rage.
:::
::: According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
::: 25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast
::: Portland.
:::
::: They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then followed
::: Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.
:::
::: "I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over
::: with our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend,
::: Jon Barber.
:::
::: Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
::: scrapes.
:::
::: Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
::: the road.
:::
::: "The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
::: bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
::: motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with
::: Portland Police Bureau.
:::
::: A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the
::: path of the collision.
:::
::: He suffered road rash all over his body.
::: Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree assault
::: and attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.
::
:: WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone
:: over on purpose?!?
::
:: Sheesh...
It's attempted murder...
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:01:39
From: gl4316@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think thatdefense will fly)
|
In article <13cljvqt8vvl110@news.supernews.com >, "Roger Zoul"
<rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
> :: WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone
> :: over on purpose?!?
> ::
> :: Sheesh...
>
> It's attempted murder...
Not in Oregon. We don't have a vehicular homicide law.
But with the number of idiots we seem to have on our streets in recent
years, we should.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 08:57:37
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think thatdefense will fly)
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Paul Berg wrote:
>> ~
>>
>> News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
>>
>> Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
>>
>> Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
>> bicyclist during a case of road rage.
>>
>> According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
>> 25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast Portland.
>>
>> They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then followed
>> Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.
>>
>> "I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over
>> with our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend,
>> Jon Barber.
>>
>> Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
>> scrapes.
>>
>> Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
>> the road.
>>
>> "The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
>> bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
>> motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with
>> Portland Police Bureau.
>>
>> A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the path
>> of the collision.
>>
>> He suffered road rash all over his body.
>> Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree assault
>> and attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.
>
> WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone
> over on purpose?!?
>
> Sheesh...
>
Quite right! Should be ALLEGED Attempted Assault.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 07:44:25
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think thatdefense will fly)
|
Lobby Dosser wrote:
:: "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
::
::: Paul Berg wrote:
:::: ~
::::
:::: News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007
::::
:::: Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.
::::
:::: Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
:::: bicyclist during a case of road rage.
::::
:::: According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
:::: 25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast
:::: Portland.
::::
:::: They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then
:::: followed Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.
::::
:::: "I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over
:::: with our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend,
:::: Jon Barber.
::::
:::: Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
:::: scrapes.
::::
:::: Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
:::: the road.
::::
:::: "The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
:::: bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
:::: motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with
:::: Portland Police Bureau.
::::
:::: A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the
:::: path of the collision.
::::
:::: He suffered road rash all over his body.
:::: Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree
:::: assault and attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.
:::
::: WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone
::: over on purpose?!?
:::
::: Sheesh...
:::
::
:: Quite right! Should be ALLEGED Attempted Assault.
Alleged attempted murder.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:36:08
From: Scott in SoCal
Subject: Re: Accused motorist frustrated by cyclist (I don't think that defense will fly)
|
pjberg@webtv.net (Paul Berg) said in rec.autos.driving:
>A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the path of
>the collision.
So much for the theory that Eschweiler crossed over to the wrong side
of the road and intentionally struck this guy. It's pretty obvious
that Mastne was either riding against traffic or maybe was riding
perpendicular to Eschweiler's direction of travel when he rode in
front of the SUV and got creamed. His own lack of situational
awareness did him in, not "road rage."
--
"It's little sh*ts like you that take my time away from my fiancee and
loved ones. F*CK YOU."
- Carl Rogers, 12/30/2006
Message-ID: <1167515577.811497.149300@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 03:07:45
From:
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
On Aug 20, 10:21 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I wonder what ER doctors in Benelux and Scandinavia think, since foam
> > bicycle hats are rarely used in those areas?
>
> Ask us if we give a shit.
Of course you don't give a shit! Why, that would be actual
information! You're not interested in that!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 03:10:39
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 20, 10:21 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I wonder what ER doctors in Benelux and Scandinavia think, since
>> > foam bicycle hats are rarely used in those areas?
>>
>> Ask us if we give a shit.
>
> Of course you don't give a shit! Why, that would be actual
> information!
Would it? When it was US ER docs, it was useless anecdotes from people
who nothing about physics.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:35:48
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Aug 20, 10:21 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I wonder what ER doctors in Benelux and Scandinavia think, since
>>>> foam bicycle hats are rarely used in those areas?
>>>
>>> Ask us if we give a shit.
>>
>> Of course you don't give a shit! Why, that would be actual
>> information!
>
> Would it? When it was US ER docs, it was useless anecdotes from people
> who nothing about physics.
Wait till Frank starts equating his voluminous (biased and faulty) helmet
"studies" to CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT! LOL
Bill "newbies..." S.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 22:13:36
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists) |
|
|
