Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Chris B., Nov 4, 2004.

  1. Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

    > On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:03:56 GMT, Chris Phillipo
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >


    >
    >>[The] helmet lobby in Canada is a figment of someone's overactive
    >>imagination.

    >
    >
    > The helmet lobby exists. It is indisputable. People are out there
    > lobbying for helmet laws, and that is why you have this bill in
    > progress. There are people all over the world lobbying for helmet
    > laws.
    >
    > Guy


    There's _certainly_ a helmet lobby in the US! I know several people who
    actively promote mandatory helmets, including lobbying legislatures!

    There's also Randy Swart's site, in which he lobbies for mandatory
    helmets for all ages. And Philip Graitcer's site which does the same.
    Both are well connected and (apparently) well financed.

    Chris, where do you think these MHL ideas come from?


    --
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
    Substitute cc dot ysu dot
    edu]
     


  2. Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

    > On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:03:56 GMT, Chris Phillipo
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >


    >
    >>[The] helmet lobby in Canada is a figment of someone's overactive
    >>imagination.

    >
    >
    > The helmet lobby exists. It is indisputable. People are out there
    > lobbying for helmet laws, and that is why you have this bill in
    > progress. There are people all over the world lobbying for helmet
    > laws.
    >
    > Guy


    There's _certainly_ a helmet lobby in the US! I know several people who
    actively promote mandatory helmets, including lobbying legislatures!

    There's also Randy Swart's site, in which he lobbies for mandatory
    helmets for all ages. And Philip Graitcer's site which does the same.
    Both are well connected and (apparently) well financed.

    Chris, where do you think these MHL ideas come from?


    --
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
    Substitute cc dot ysu dot
    edu]
     
  3. AustinMN

    AustinMN Guest

    Chris Phillipo wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > says...
    >>
    >> If you sell bicycles, then you really ought to know that ownership does
    >> not
    >> equal ridership. Today, probably 95% of all bicycles sold never see 100
    >> miles, ever.
    >>
    >> Club ridership is also misleading. There is more club ridership, but not
    >> to
    >> many years ago almost nobody rode in clubs.
    >>
    >> Austin
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Grasp for a few more straws, you'll be able to build your own haystack.


    You have a stake in the outcome, in case you didn't notice. Since you make
    money selling bicycle helmets you need the result to come out a certain way.

    Austin
     
  4. AustinMN

    AustinMN Guest

    Chris Phillipo wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > says...
    >> Subject: Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through
    >> From: "AustinMN" <[email protected]>
    >> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc, ont.bicycle
    >>
    >> Chris Phillipo wrote:
    >> > In article <[email protected]>,
    >> > [email protected] says...
    >> >>
    >> >> Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
    >> >> becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
    >> >> the case of kids parental enforcement.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> > Well not counting you, I haven't met that person.

    >>
    >> I've met a dozen. I'm even married to a woman who has said "If they make
    >> me
    >> wear a helmet, I'm not riding." I know her well enough that it makes no
    >> to
    >> her difference if the law is enforced or not.
    >>

    >
    > If it's not enforced, who is making here do anything? You perhaps?


    She, unlike you, has a conscience.

    Get an enema. You'll feel better, and you won't be so full of shit.

    Austin
     
  5. AustinMN

    AustinMN Guest

    Dragan Cvetkovic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "AustinMN" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> There are no X characters in my address

    >
    > Indeed there are none.
    >
    > Dragan


    Yes, indeed. An oversight since corrected.

    Austin
    --
    I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
    There are no X characters in my address
     
  6. On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:10:04 GMT, "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote
    in message <[email protected]>:

    >Now that is a reference to my country locking up terrorists
    >without trials or representations - something Democrats were quite
    >happy with during the second world war. Or did I miss the photographs
    >of all the lawyers being flown across the pacific for individual
    >trials?


    You seem to be mistaking a police action for a war. Although I
    suppose invading Iraq was an act of war, albeit without benefit of
    prior declaration (inna Pearl Harbor stylee).

    But you are right: there are precedents in WWII for treating prisoners
    of war outside the terms of the Geneva Convention. Japanese treatment
    of Allied PoWs springs to mind, and the Germans sending Russian PoWs
    to concentration camps.

    I thought that was the kind of thing we were supposed to be fighting
    against, myself...

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  7. On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
    <[email protected]> wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!


    LOL! Excellent use of irony, Mr. K :)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  8. Ken [NY] wrote:

    > On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:14:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
    > <[email protected]> claims:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>[Ken NY:]
    >>
    >>>>> Sorry, Sir, but I did not send it off into a political thread,
    >>>>>I just followed it, due to my simplistic thinking, I guess. We
    >>>>>commoners are like that.
    >>>>
    >>>> [fk:]
    >>>>Bullshit, Ken. This thread was about a helmet bill in Canada. You most
    >>>>certainly did send it off into a political thread. Certainly, you can't
    >>>>be _ignorant_ of that fact!
    >>>
    >>>[Ken NY:]
    >>> Well, I was refering to something a gentleman wrote in another
    >>>thread:

    >>
    >>That was obvious. You made a fool of yourself by bringing that topic
    >>unbidden into _this_ thread, then pretending you didn't. If you're not
    >>capable of keeping your conversations straight, you should either take
    >>notes or stop posting.

    >
    >
    > Nothing wrong with my "conversations", Frank. I can bring in a
    > quote from another thread anytime I want to.


    Sure you can. What you _can't_ do is say "Sorry, Sir, but I did not
    send it off into a political thread, I just followed it, due to my
    simplistic thinking, I guess. We commoners are like that."

    Hmmm. Maybe I should retract that. You can say anything that occurs to
    you, and you did say the above. But the effect is not what you'd like.
    All that happens is your mistake is out there for everyone else to see.

    >>BTW, I note the propensity of hard-ass right wingers to save all their
    >>forgiveness for themselves. What ever happened to personal
    >>responsibility? What ever happened to owning up to ones' mistakes? Are
    >>those are only for other folks?

    >
    >
    > When I make a mistake, I own up to it. Something the left
    > never seems to do.


    This is where you're supposed to say "And you're right, I _was_ the
    first person to divert this thread into obnoxious politics."

    But I note that you're still reserving all your forgiveness for
    yourself, and refusing to admit your obvious mistake. Why is that?
    Surely, you _can't_ believe you're making yourself look intelligent!

    Now really, don't you think it's time to drop this and get back on topic?



    --
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
    Substitute cc dot ysu dot
    edu]
     
  9. Ken [NY] wrote:

    > On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:05:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
    > <[email protected]> claims:
    >
    >
    >>Ken [NY] wrote:
    >>
    >>>"When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye have
    >>>made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the
    >>>fetters."
    >>> --Koran, SURA1 47.-MUHAMMAD [XCVI.]

    >>
    >>
    >>" Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the
    >>priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death. Such evil
    >>must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12)

    >
    >
    > Ah, see any Jews or Christians on television, slashing off
    > heads of civilians?


    I seem to recall some Texas governor presiding over record numbers of
    executions, while loudly calling himself a Christian. (But you're right
    about televising it; that would be bad for election campaigns.)

    Funny thing, though. There _are_ lots of Christians that are against
    the death penalty. As I understand it, it's supposed to have something
    to do with one of those Ten Commandments.



    Now why not take your prejudices to some appropriate newsgroup?

    --
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
    Substitute cc dot ysu dot
    edu]
     
  10. On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:21:52 -0600, "AustinMN" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >You have a stake in the outcome, in case you didn't notice. Since you make
    >money selling bicycle helmets you need the result to come out a certain way.


    Correct. And compulsion is not it, unless he's planning on retiring
    Real Soon Now.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  11. AustinMN

    AustinMN Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    > On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:21:52 -0600, "AustinMN" <[email protected]>
    > wrote in message <[email protected]>:
    >
    >>You have a stake in the outcome, in case you didn't notice. Since you
    >>make
    >>money selling bicycle helmets you need the result to come out a certain
    >>way.

    >
    > Correct. And compulsion is not it, unless he's planning on retiring
    > Real Soon Now.


    I'd thought of that, but I'm not sure he's capable of thinking that through.

    Austin
    --
    I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
    There are no X characters in my address
     
  12. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Peter, you are wasting your time. As far as Zaumen is concerned there
    > are only two types of people in the world: people who agree with him,
    > and liars.


    Guy, of course, is lying again. I've never called anyone a "liar" for
    simply disagreeing with me. I have for claiming I've said things that
    I never said or posting libelous statements that they couldn't back
    up.


    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  13. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:25:06 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
    > Zaumen wrote:
    >
    > >Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.

    >
    > Your house a bit short of mirrors, then, Bill?


    More infantile name calling from Guy. What a moron.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  14. Frank Krygowski wrote:
    > Ken [NY] wrote:


    >>>> "When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye
    >>>> have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast
    >>>> the fetters."
    >>>> --Koran, SURA1 47.-MUHAMMAD [XCVI.]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> " Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of
    >>> the priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death.
    >>> Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12)

    >>
    >>
    >> Ah, see any Jews or Christians on television, slashing off
    >> heads of civilians?

    >
    > I seem to recall some Texas governor presiding over record numbers of
    > executions, while loudly calling himself a Christian. (But you're
    > right about televising it; that would be bad for election campaigns.)
    >
    > Funny thing, though. There _are_ lots of Christians that are against
    > the death penalty. As I understand it, it's supposed to have
    > something to do with one of those Ten Commandments.



    Just the fact that you'd compare kidnapping innocent men /and women/ and
    cutting off their heads to capital punishment of /convicted murderers/
    (after years and years of legal appeals while being incarcerated and treated
    /relatively/ humanely) speaks volumes...ABOUT YOU, FRANK.

    > Now why not take your prejudices to some appropriate newsgroup?


    Is there an alt.head-in-the-sand?!?

    Bill "sign yourself up" S.
     
  15. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!

    >
    > LOL! Excellent use of irony, Mr. K :)


    Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted,
    not to mention the fact that Krygowski was claiming helmets don't
    work but apparently (given their reaction) neither want to talk about
    controling for changes in driver behavior over the time frame when
    helmet use went up substantially. It's the usual double standard
    on their part.

    Also, a few minutes spent outside at an intersection looking at
    drivers in the Bay Area will convince you that there is a major
    problem with people running red lights and otherwise behaving far more
    recklessly than was typical 30 years ago. It is simply common
    knowledge, and is hardly surprising. Just plot a graph of the
    population changes over the past 30 years with the number of police
    officers on the road handing out moving violations. If you don't think
    that has an impact, then ask why a standard police procedure is to
    step up enforcement a few days before they do a speed survey to set
    the speed limit when a city would like the limit reduced.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  16. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Peter Keller <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:23:45 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > >> Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
    > >> silence.

    > >
    > >
    > > But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
    > > have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
    > > how often you do this sort of thing.
    > >
    > > Oh, and one other thing - I posted it with the caveat "if I remembered
    > > correctly." It meant what it said. Your statement about "inventing
    > > things" is simply character assassination. You'd fit quite well
    > > in Bush's election campaign - those bastards have the same ethics
    > > you do.

    >
    > Isn't it funny the way people who don't like a position (that mandatory
    > helmet laws are harmful and counterproductive) but can't find any facts
    > to back up their position, attack the person (messenger) instead?


    Isn't it funny how anti-helmet people will post statements such as
    yours while ignoring what Krygowski said, namely "Bill, I'm
    continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to silence,"
    (and that is after I had posted an accurate account of what
    transpired.)

    > Truth is absolute, and does not depend on the personal characteristics of
    > the person telling the truth.


    Krygowksi's actions are self explanatory. He's been doing that for
    a good decade, and you appear to be as hypocritical as he is.

    Oh, and in case you didn't notice, the post I responded to was a purely
    personal attack on his part with nothing in it about helmets. Sounds
    to me like you are a real hypocrite - you guys post personal attack
    after personal attack and then whine if you get even a peep in response.
    And that also has been going on for at least a decade.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  17. Bill Z. wrote:

    >
    > Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...


    Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were pertinent.
    You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!

    Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
    four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data. As
    usual.


    --
    --------------------+
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
    replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
     
  18. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

    > Bill Z. wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...

    >
    > Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were
    > pertinent. You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!


    Where did you respond? Maybe you should repeat it as a real response
    never arrived.

    > Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
    > four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data.
    > As usual.


    You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use. It is
    *your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
    controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
    Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

    As to the age of the stories, the substantial increase in helmet use
    happened about 10 years ago (a bit more, actually), so those years
    *are* relevant. The California helmet law as also passed at around
    that time.

    Also, pedestrian fatalities *are* relevant (the issue was evidence of
    increasingly irresponsible driving.) Of course you know that and are
    IMHO pretending otherwise.

    I can tell you from personal experience that in the 1970s, if a
    pedestrian even looked like he or she was going to cross at an
    intersection, drivers in the Bay Area would stop. Now (illegally)
    they if anything speed up. If you *do* stop for a pedestrian,
    which is required by law, the drivers behind you will throw a
    fit and start honking their horns.

    So don't try to pretend that driver behavior has not gotten
    substantially worse. It has gotten worse.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  19. Bill Z. wrote:

    > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Bill Z. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...

    >>
    >>Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were
    >>pertinent. You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!

    >
    >
    > Where did you respond? Maybe you should repeat it as a real response
    > never arrived.


    I quote:

    "Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data. In
    particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more dangerous.
    Given that the red light cameras are catching these people, it's
    entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I know
    there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous - but
    really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!"


    >
    >
    >>Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
    >>four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data.
    >>As usual.

    >
    >
    > You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use.


    That's true!

    It is
    > *your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
    > controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
    > Those *include* changes in driver behavior.


    Wow. Maybe you should run that by a specialist in logic, Bill.

    I claimed there have been no benefits seen for helmet use. I've given
    citations elsewhere in this, and related, threads.

    If you claim the reason for the lack of benefit is directly attributed
    to changes in driver behavior - or to bad fairies, for that matter! -
    it's up to _you_ to prove _your_ point. (And news stories that give one
    lay person's opinion prove nothing!)


    > Also, pedestrian fatalities *are* relevant (the issue was evidence of
    > increasingly irresponsible driving.) Of course you know that and are
    > IMHO pretending otherwise.


    Do you have data indicating that California pedestrian fatalities have
    risen in the past 15 years or so? If so, let's have the _data_.

    >
    > I can tell you from personal experience...


    Quit blathering. Let's have the _data_.


    --
    --------------------+
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
    replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
     
  20. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Frank Krygowski <[email protected]otato.com> writes:

    > Bill Z. wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data.
    > In particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more
    > dangerous. Given that the red light cameras are catching these people,
    > it's entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I
    > know there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous -
    > but really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!"
    >


    Sigh. The red light cameras (located at a handful of intersections
    in a city located in a much larger area), were put in *in response*
    to a serious problem with red-light runners.

    See <http://www.its.berkeley.edu/techtransfer/resources/pub/nl/00fall/seeingred.html> which states

    "In San Francisco, with its compact driving environment and dense
    network of signalized intersections, red-light running reached a
    political crisis in 1994. This paper reports on a pilot photo
    enforcement program which resulted in a 40 percent drop in violations
    in the first six months at the enforced intersections."

    See <http://www.ccsf.edu/Events_Pubs/Guardsman/052297/news.html#red%20light>
    which says, "In response to the recent epidemic of red-light running, the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) has developed a one-year pilot program called the Red Light Cameras Program."

    You can also read
    <http://www.walksf.org/DPTPedFatalityReportFor98/report.html>
    and
    <http://www.sannet.gov/engineering-cip/services/public/rlphoto/faq.shtml>
    and
    <http://www.laub.com/ptf.asp>.

    Don't pretend that there hasn't been a serious problem.


    > > You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use.

    >
    > That's true!
    >
    > It is
    > > *your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
    > > controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
    > > Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

    >
    > Wow. Maybe you should run that by a specialist in logic, Bill.


    Maybe you should learn what it takes to do serious research.
    >
    > Quit blathering. Let's have the _data_.


    You *have* plenty of data. You'll simply ignore it. What you don't
    have is data backing up your claims. You specifically made a claim
    about helmets, and now are trying to weasel out of the fact that you
    have no valid data on which to base those claims due to your inability
    to control for changes in driver behavior.

    Calling it "blathering" is simply an attempt on your part to get out
    of having to back up your claims.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
Loading...
Loading...