if cycling could be

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by iguana, Apr 20, 2006.

  1. Tim Lines wrote:
    > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    >
    > > There are people w/o a lot of money in a county near me who are put
    > > off from riding due to helmets being required.

    >
    > Where I live, I see an awful lot of people riding without helmets. The
    > law in this county says you're supposed to wear them. The majority DOES
    > wear them but not all.
    >
    > The point is, I have NEVER seen anyone cited for violating the helmet
    > laws. While I'm sure it happens, I'm also sure it's rare. I've seen
    > helmetless riders cruise right past police cars in speed traps with
    > nothing more than a friendly wave.


    Oddly enough, some mandatory helmet promoters have tried to use that as
    an excuse to get a law passed! The line goes something like "Well, we
    won't even have to enforce it. It will just be a way of encouraging
    helmets."

    Specious at best. What's the value of teaching kids that the laws
    don't really mean anything?

    - Frank Krygowski
     


  2. > bill wrote:
    >> Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
    >> adult cyclists?

    >
    > Helmets are required for _all_ cyclists in New Zealand, most of
    > Australia, most of Spain, a few other European countries (Iceland and
    > the Czech Republic, IIRC) and in at least 30 cities and counties in the
    > US.
    >
    > And of course, helmets are requried for kids in many more places.
    >
    > Absolutely ludicrous.
    >
    > - Frank Krygowski


    Here in Holland helmets are not required.

    Personally, when I ride my racing bicycle in the hills, most of the
    times in a group, I always wear my helmet.

    When on a sunny evening I ride into the inner city on my commuter bike
    with wife and kids to drink a beer, at a pace of < 20 km/h and a
    distance shorter than 7 km I never wear a helmet.

    Sounds logical, doesn't it?

    Don't obey the law because it's there. Think!

    Martin


    --
    Posted by news://news.nb.nu
     
  3. Don Freeman

    Don Freeman Guest

    "Martin Borsje" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >> bill wrote:
    >>> Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
    >>> adult cyclists?

    >>
    >> Helmets are required for _all_ cyclists in New Zealand, most of
    >> Australia, most of Spain, a few other European countries (Iceland and
    >> the Czech Republic, IIRC) and in at least 30 cities and counties in the
    >> US.
    >>
    >> And of course, helmets are requried for kids in many more places.
    >>
    >> Absolutely ludicrous.
    >>
    >> - Frank Krygowski

    >
    > Here in Holland helmets are not required.
    >
    > Personally, when I ride my racing bicycle in the hills, most of the times
    > in a group, I always wear my helmet.
    >
    >

    Hills? Holland? Surely you jest. <G>

    The only hills I remember were the man made one to keep the water out of the
    polders.

    (I can't say the d-word as I work in PC San Francisco)
     
  4. Len

    Len Guest

    Martin Borsje wrote:

    > Here in Holland helmets are not required.
    >
    > Personally, when I ride my racing bicycle in the hills, most of the
    > times in a group, I always wear my helmet.
    >
    > When on a sunny evening I ride into the inner city on my commuter bike
    > with wife and kids to drink a beer, at a pace of < 20 km/h and a
    > distance shorter than 7 km I never wear a helmet.
    >
    > Sounds logical, doesn't it?
    >
    > Don't obey the law because it's there. Think!
    >
    > Martin


    Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet, not because it
    was required (which it was), but because everybody else did (probably
    because it was required). There were many who claimed that, in an
    accident of any severity, it would do nothing for me. As many claim
    about bicycle helmets.

    One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
    hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
    asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.

    I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).

    He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
    have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
    for the helmet".

    After I got my motorcycle home, the first thing I bought (while the
    bike was being repaired) was a new helmet.

    I still have the first helmet to remind me. The motorcycle is gone
    (not because of the accident), but that helmet sits on my bookcase, as
    a reminder.

    I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.
     
  5. Dane Buson

    Dane Buson Guest

    Len <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    > anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.


    I can't imagine wearing a motorcycle helmet on the bicycle. Looks
    rather stuffy to me. I actually do see someone commuting by bike fairly
    often who wears a full-face motocross style helmet. I would stop and
    ask why, but I fear he would take offense.

    --
    Dane Buson - [email protected]
    "You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe: when it knocked down our
    buildings it did not replace them with anything more offensive than
    rubble. We did that." - Charles, Prince of Wales
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Guest

    Len wrote:
    > Martin Borsje wrote:
    >
    > > Here in Holland helmets are not required.
    > >
    > > Personally, when I ride my racing bicycle in the hills, most of the
    > > times in a group, I always wear my helmet.
    > >
    > > When on a sunny evening I ride into the inner city on my commuter bike
    > > with wife and kids to drink a beer, at a pace of < 20 km/h and a
    > > distance shorter than 7 km I never wear a helmet.
    > >
    > > Sounds logical, doesn't it?
    > >
    > > Don't obey the law because it's there. Think!
    > >
    > > Martin

    >
    > Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet, not because it
    > was required (which it was), but because everybody else did (probably
    > because it was required). There were many who claimed that, in an
    > accident of any severity, it would do nothing for me. As many claim
    > about bicycle helmets.
    >
    > One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
    > hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
    > asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.
    >
    > I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).
    >
    > He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
    > have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
    > for the helmet".
    >
    > After I got my motorcycle home, the first thing I bought (while the
    > bike was being repaired) was a new helmet.
    >
    > I still have the first helmet to remind me. The motorcycle is gone
    > (not because of the accident), but that helmet sits on my bookcase, as
    > a reminder.
    >
    > I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    > anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.


    Have you always been so irrational? Statistically, most accidents
    occur close to home. That's the one time you SHOULD be wearing a
    helmet.

    Of course, if you understood the differences between motorcycle helmets
    and bicycle helmets and the incredibly low threshold for which a
    bicycle helmet is designed to protect you, you wouldn't bother to wear
    one around the neighborhood or out around the park, or anywhere else,
    for that matter.
     
  7. Scott wrote:
    > Len wrote:
    >
    >>Martin Borsje wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Here in Holland helmets are not required.
    >>>
    >>>Personally, when I ride my racing bicycle in the hills, most of the
    >>>times in a group, I always wear my helmet.
    >>>
    >>>When on a sunny evening I ride into the inner city on my commuter bike
    >>>with wife and kids to drink a beer, at a pace of < 20 km/h and a
    >>>distance shorter than 7 km I never wear a helmet.
    >>>
    >>>Sounds logical, doesn't it?
    >>>
    >>>Don't obey the law because it's there. Think!
    >>>
    >>>Martin

    >>
    >>Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet, not because it
    >>was required (which it was), but because everybody else did (probably
    >>because it was required). There were many who claimed that, in an
    >>accident of any severity, it would do nothing for me. As many claim
    >>about bicycle helmets.
    >>
    >>One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
    >>hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
    >>asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.
    >>
    >>I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).
    >>
    >>He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
    >>have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
    >>for the helmet".
    >>
    >>After I got my motorcycle home, the first thing I bought (while the
    >>bike was being repaired) was a new helmet.
    >>
    >>I still have the first helmet to remind me. The motorcycle is gone
    >>(not because of the accident), but that helmet sits on my bookcase, as
    >>a reminder.
    >>
    >>I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    >>anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.

    >
    >
    > Have you always been so irrational? Statistically, most accidents
    > occur close to home. That's the one time you SHOULD be wearing a
    > helmet.
    >
    > Of course, if you understood the differences between motorcycle helmets
    > and bicycle helmets and the incredibly low threshold for which a
    > bicycle helmet is designed to protect you, you wouldn't bother to wear
    > one around the neighborhood or out around the park, or anywhere else,
    > for that matter.
    >

    How dare you argue with a statistical sample of one.

    Gabe
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Guest

    Gabe Brovedani wrote:
    > Scott wrote:
    > > Len wrote:
    > >
    > >>Martin Borsje wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Here in Holland helmets are not required.
    > >>>
    > >>>Personally, when I ride my racing bicycle in the hills, most of the
    > >>>times in a group, I always wear my helmet.
    > >>>
    > >>>When on a sunny evening I ride into the inner city on my commuter bike
    > >>>with wife and kids to drink a beer, at a pace of < 20 km/h and a
    > >>>distance shorter than 7 km I never wear a helmet.
    > >>>
    > >>>Sounds logical, doesn't it?
    > >>>
    > >>>Don't obey the law because it's there. Think!
    > >>>
    > >>>Martin
    > >>
    > >>Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet, not because it
    > >>was required (which it was), but because everybody else did (probably
    > >>because it was required). There were many who claimed that, in an
    > >>accident of any severity, it would do nothing for me. As many claim
    > >>about bicycle helmets.
    > >>
    > >>One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
    > >>hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
    > >>asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.
    > >>
    > >>I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).
    > >>
    > >>He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
    > >>have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
    > >>for the helmet".
    > >>
    > >>After I got my motorcycle home, the first thing I bought (while the
    > >>bike was being repaired) was a new helmet.
    > >>
    > >>I still have the first helmet to remind me. The motorcycle is gone
    > >>(not because of the accident), but that helmet sits on my bookcase, as
    > >>a reminder.
    > >>
    > >>I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    > >>anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.

    > >
    > >
    > > Have you always been so irrational? Statistically, most accidents
    > > occur close to home. That's the one time you SHOULD be wearing a
    > > helmet.
    > >
    > > Of course, if you understood the differences between motorcycle helmets
    > > and bicycle helmets and the incredibly low threshold for which a
    > > bicycle helmet is designed to protect you, you wouldn't bother to wear
    > > one around the neighborhood or out around the park, or anywhere else,
    > > for that matter.
    > >

    > How dare you argue with a statistical sample of one.
    >
    > Gabe


    Excellent question. Nothing worse than arguing with the 'converted'.
    Anecdotal evidence is very persuasive in the minds of the fanatics.
     
  9. GWood wrote:
    > Troll.
    >
    > Please feel free to not wear a helmet. But ride really, really fast and
    > take chances. Hopefully you'll spare us the public burden of a long term
    > care facility.


    So GWood seems to believe there is some connection between bicycling
    without a helmet and "public burden of a long term care facility."

    I'd love to see the evidence. All evidence I've encountered points the
    opposite way: that cycling has a benefit-to-risk ratio of about 20 to
    1; and that in large population studies, helmets have no detectable
    benefit against truly serious injuries.

    Admittedly, there are some case-control studies of small, self-selected
    populations that predict wonderful benefits from helmet use. But the
    benefits predicted by those faulty studies have never materialized in
    the real world.

    So, GWood, got data?

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  10. Scott wrote:
    > Len wrote:
    > >
    > > I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    > > anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.

    >
    > Have you always been so irrational? Statistically, most accidents
    > occur close to home. That's the one time you SHOULD be wearing a
    > helmet.


    I believe the reason "most accidents occur close to home" is that most
    of people's lives are spent close to home.

    Statistically, I'm much more likely to have an accident walking in my
    driveway
    than while jumping cravasses in Antarctica. Not because my driveway is
    more dangerous. Just because I spend lots more time there.

    I believe the number of accidents per mile traveled, or per hour
    exposure, is _less_ closer to home. You know the conditions, and
    you're much less likely to be confused. OTOH, driving at night while
    lost in a strange city with heavy traffic you're not used to is a
    recipe for danger.

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  11. Len wrote:
    >
    > Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet...
    >
    > One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
    > hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
    > asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.
    >
    > I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).
    >
    > He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
    > have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
    > for the helmet".


    Let's clear up a few points. First, motorcycling really is an unusual
    source of head injuries. Cycling is NOT, despite the helmet-selling
    hype.

    Second, motorcycle helmets are very, very different from bike helmets.
    It shouldn't take an engineering degree to notice the difference.
    Protection by one doesn't guarantee any worth in the other.

    Third, motorcycle helmets probably are somewhat effective. There's
    good population-level data that shows this, resulting from study of
    two-passsenger MC crashes, where one person was helmeted, one not. But
    the level of protection is certainly nowhere close to 100%. It's not
    even 50%. Population-level studies show bike helmets are _not_
    effective against anything beyond scratches and scrapes.

    Fourth, doctors are NOT trained experts in evaluating protective
    effects. We once had a post here where a crashed cyclist was asked by
    the ER doctor if he'd worn a helmet. The cyclist lied and said "Yes"
    just because he didn't want a lecture. The doctor told him "Well, it
    saved your life."

    > I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    > anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.


    If you were to do this logically, you'd research what activities have
    higher rates of serious head injury per hour, and what activities have
    lower rates. You'd wear a helmet for the activities with higher rates,
    and not for lower ones.

    The problem with this is that you'd wear one on the motorcycle, but
    you'd also wear one walking near traffic, because that activity causes
    more HI per hour than does cycling. You'd probably strap one on while
    descending stairs, too.

    If you decided cycling were at a level to justify a helmet, then you'd
    need to wear one in your car, where the level is very close to the
    same. Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.

    And then you've got to ask yourself: Why do we pay for airbags, when
    we'd probably get better serious head injury reduction by wearing
    helmets inside cars?

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  12. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > GWood wrote:
    >> Troll.
    >>
    >> Please feel free to not wear a helmet. But ride really, really fast and
    >> take chances. Hopefully you'll spare us the public burden of a long term
    >> care facility.

    >
    > So GWood seems to believe there is some connection between bicycling
    > without a helmet and "public burden of a long term care facility."
    >
    > I'd love to see the evidence. All evidence I've encountered points the
    > opposite way: that cycling has a benefit-to-risk ratio of about 20 to
    > 1; and that in large population studies, helmets have no detectable
    > benefit against truly serious injuries.
    >
    > Admittedly, there are some case-control studies of small, self-selected
    > populations that predict wonderful benefits from helmet use. But the
    > benefits predicted by those faulty studies have never materialized in
    > the real world.
    >
    > So, GWood, got data?
    >
    > - Frank Krygowski
    >

    Hey fool,
    That means you Frank.
    I don't wear a helmet and don't crash, but even if I did I would not be
    a long time burden on society by living at taxpayer expense in a $4,000
    a month 'Waiting to die' home.
    Since I have a sizable SSI retirement to draw on, the longer I live the
    more it will cost the self righteous like you, giving me a reason to
    live even longer. However, my no helmet life style is better than the
    smoking, drinking, and couch potato life style which leads to years in
    retirement homes.
    Rag all you want and contribute to global warming with that big,
    uninformed mouth.
    Bill (staying healthy and not using oil) Baka
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Len wrote:
    > >
    > > Many years ago, I was a motorcyclist. I wore a helmet...
    > >
    > > One day, I had an accident. When the surgeon in the ER finished 2
    > > hours of picking asphalt out of my thigh and arm, he looked at me and
    > > asked "Do you want my professional opinion?", and he was serious.
    > >
    > > I said "Yes", but I was a little scared (plus banged up).
    > >
    > > He said "In my medical opinion, from looking at your helmet, you would
    > > have a skull fracture, in addition to losing your glasses, were it not
    > > for the helmet".

    >
    > Let's clear up a few points. First, motorcycling really is an unusual
    > source of head injuries. Cycling is NOT, despite the helmet-selling
    > hype.
    >
    > Second, motorcycle helmets are very, very different from bike helmets.
    > It shouldn't take an engineering degree to notice the difference.
    > Protection by one doesn't guarantee any worth in the other.
    >
    > Third, motorcycle helmets probably are somewhat effective. There's
    > good population-level data that shows this, resulting from study of
    > two-passsenger MC crashes, where one person was helmeted, one not. But
    > the level of protection is certainly nowhere close to 100%. It's not
    > even 50%. Population-level studies show bike helmets are _not_
    > effective against anything beyond scratches and scrapes.
    >
    > Fourth, doctors are NOT trained experts in evaluating protective
    > effects. We once had a post here where a crashed cyclist was asked by
    > the ER doctor if he'd worn a helmet. The cyclist lied and said "Yes"
    > just because he didn't want a lecture. The doctor told him "Well, it
    > saved your life."
    >
    > > I wear a helmet. Maybe not for a afternoon at the park, but if I go
    > > anywhere outside my neighborhood, I wear a helmet. Period.

    >
    > If you were to do this logically, you'd research what activities have
    > higher rates of serious head injury per hour, and what activities have
    > lower rates. You'd wear a helmet for the activities with higher rates,
    > and not for lower ones.
    >
    > The problem with this is that you'd wear one on the motorcycle, but
    > you'd also wear one walking near traffic, because that activity causes
    > more HI per hour than does cycling. You'd probably strap one on while
    > descending stairs, too.
    >
    > If you decided cycling were at a level to justify a helmet, then you'd
    > need to wear one in your car, where the level is very close to the
    > same. Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.
    >
    > And then you've got to ask yourself: Why do we pay for airbags, when
    > we'd probably get better serious head injury reduction by wearing
    > helmets inside cars?
    >
    > - Frank Krygowski


    Don't forget, we should wear helmets in the shower, too.

    S.

    p.s. Your airbag argument is a bit weak, in that they do at least
    protect you from other injuries besides just head injuries. When used
    in conjunction with seatbelts, they do actually help with lot's of
    other injuries. Just not significantly effective against head
    injuries, at least not as significant as the use of motorcycle-style
    helmets in cars. But, we all know no one's ever going to suggest THAT
    as good public policy.
     
  14. Drew

    Drew Guest

    "iguana" <[email protected]> wrote in message > worked in preventing
    injury so it should be reviewed, but the

    > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.
    >


    OK. Lets stop expecting the goverment to do everything, and do it
    wourselves...
    I want the Feds to stay out of my life. They already have a stranglhold on
    everything else....

    Drew
     
  15. Drew

    Drew Guest

    Top post, bottom posting.
    Sheeeiitt...
    Who gives a crap.
    Reply, post enjoy, confront, agree, disagree, ridicule, compliment, fool
    aroung, lie cheat...

    Who cares. It's all for fun.

    Drew


    >
    > Additionally, please stop top posting. Didn't you know that top posting
    > causes your breath to grow foul, your palms to grow hair, and often
    > leads to sleeping under bridges?
    >
    > --
    > Dane Buson - [email protected]
    > "That time in Seattle... was a nightmare. I came out of it dead broke,
    > without a house, without anything except a girlfriend and a knowledge of
    > UNIX." "Well, that's something," Avi says. "Normally those two are
    > mutually exclusive." --Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon"
     
  16. Scott wrote:
    >
    > Your airbag argument is a bit weak, in that they do at least
    > protect you from other injuries besides just head injuries. When used
    > in conjunction with seatbelts, they do actually help with lot's of
    > other injuries.


    I know that. But two relevant points are these:

    First, the vast majority of motorist fatalities are due to head
    injuries. (This is actually true for almost all accidental
    fatalities.) For whatever reason - probably sales promotion - it's
    never mentioned for anyone other than bicyclists.

    Second, airbags are not nearly as effective as the public has been led
    to believe. Airbags prevent only a few percent more fatalities than
    belts, at hundreds of times the cost. And perversely, some of the
    "effectiveness" of airbags may come from fear of the airbag, because
    that explosive "safety device" in your car can kill you if you don't
    have your seat belt fastened. (Check your car owner's manual, or the
    publicity from a few years ago.) They may have simply scared people
    into buckling up.

    > Just not significantly effective against head
    > injuries, at least not as significant as the use of motorcycle-style
    > helmets in cars. But, we all know no one's ever going to suggest THAT
    > as good public policy.


    Actually, it has been seriously suggested. See
    http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.html

    Of course, that went over like a lead balloon. Helmets are something
    legislators impose on _other_ people - not themselves, and certainly
    not the majority of voters!

    It's interesting that almost every argument for bicycle helmets applies
    at least as well to car helmets.

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  17. [email protected] wrote:

    > If you were to do this logically, you'd research what activities have
    > higher rates of serious head injury per hour, and what activities have
    > lower rates. You'd wear a helmet for the activities with higher rates,
    > and not for lower ones.
    >
    > The problem with this is that you'd wear one on the motorcycle, but
    > you'd also wear one walking near traffic, because that activity causes
    > more HI per hour than does cycling. You'd probably strap one on while
    > descending stairs, too.


    I agree. But I think people should also wear finger helmets.
    To protect themselves from, among other things, getting in
    and prolonging pointless arguments. Obviously it would be
    inconvenient to wear finger helmets all the time, so people
    should wear finger helmets for activities with a higher rate
    of obvious trolling. Like helmet threads crossposted to
    four different cycling newgroups.

    Ben
    The ER doctor says that if only RBR's Andrew Albright had worn
    a finger helmet, he could have been saved from finger cancer.
    Tragic!
     
  18. Bob

    Bob Guest

    iguana wrote:
    > if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
    > again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
    > would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
    > have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
    > adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
    > worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.


    Helmet laws are probably the # 1 reason people don't cycle. Okay, maybe
    # 2. Or # 573.

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  19. iguana bwana

    iguana bwana Guest

    Bob wrote:
    > iguana wrote:
    > > if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
    > > again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
    > > would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
    > > have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
    > > adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
    > > worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    > > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.

    >
    > Helmet laws are probably the # 1 reason people don't cycle.


    kids are tuff they don't need a helmet.
     
  20. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    On 20 Apr 2006 10:48:49 -0700, "Len" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >Granted, there are a few bicyclists who believe in observing the laws
    >of the road. But the ones who don't are the ones who are most visible.


    Get over it.
    We've been ridiculed, harassed and attacked for over 130 years.

    It's part and parcel of cycling among the unwashed heathen dirty puke
    motherfukerz who don't cycle.

    I givashit what the caged scumbags think. They're worthless.
    Fukem all right in their dark hearts.


    yeah, you too!
    --
    zk
     
Loading...
Loading...