Raged motorist strikes two cyclists



On Aug 22, 7:58 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 21, 11:31 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > Driving lids is pretty simple: since more people get head injuries in
> > > cars (shocking!), then drivers should wear helmets, too. (Racers do,
> > > of course.)

>
> > Are these groups great entertainment, or what?!

>
> Sure!
>
> Actually, they serve several purposes. Some people actually use them
> to (surprise!) learn things. Others use them to make wisecracks.
> Apparently, they work for both kinds of people.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


99.573% of the time they are the SAME people.
 
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote:
> On Aug 22, 7:58 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 11:31 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>>> Driving lids is pretty simple: since more people get head
>>>> injuries in cars (shocking!), then drivers should wear helmets,
>>>> too. (Racers do, of course.)

>>
>>> Are these groups great entertainment, or what?!

>>
>> Sure!
>>
>> Actually, they serve several purposes. Some people actually use them
>> to (surprise!) learn things.


Lobby learned that Frank thinks that his "life's work" (plastic bike hats)
is as important as cancer research and treatment! LOL

Illuminating, indeed...
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Driving lids is pretty simple: since more people get head injuries in cars
> (shocking!), then drivers should wear helmets, too. (Racers do, of course.)


I'd be glad to, after the police here abandon their policy of assuming that
any car driver wearing a helmet (or a racing harness) intends to engage in
street racing.
 
John David Galt wrote:

> I'd be glad to


See how context matters? HTH...
 
Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:17:52 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58 -0700, [email protected] (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.
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 7:58 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Aug 21, 11:31 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Driving lids is pretty simple: since more people get head
>>>>> injuries in cars (shocking!), then drivers should wear helmets,
>>>>> too. (Racers do, of course.)
>>>
>>>> Are these groups great entertainment, or what?!
>>>
>>> Sure!
>>>
>>> Actually, they serve several purposes. Some people actually use
>>> them to (surprise!) learn things.

>
> Lobby learned that Frank thinks that his "life's work" (plastic bike
> hats) is as important as cancer research and treatment! LOL
>
> Illuminating, indeed...
>
>
>


Yes, but I'm not sure such knowledge is all that useful. Except for a
laugh, of course.
 
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
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:52:11 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> some body wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The photo (you have to click on it to make it bigger) shown here in
>>>> fact shows one of the streets in this neighborhood:
>>>> http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/tp/1a7357/
>>>> This is a two-way street, NOT a one-way street, and the only way
>>>> they work
>>>> is by cooperation and sharing the road.

>>
>> This is not a road I'd make a habit of riding.
>>

> These streets have built-in traffic calming. ...
> Precedence is governed by courtesy and situational awareness. Traffic
> advances only as far as permits opposing traffic to pull off.
>
> They aren't bad streets for biking. Very few cagers will dive into
> the narrow open lane when it's occupied by a bike, well, my bike
> anyway.


You can't go any speed on these streets on a bike, nor are you intended to.
But for commuter/shopper use they are just fine. Lots of these in older
urban areas.
 
[email protected] 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.
 
On Aug 22, 8:07 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> 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.
 
Fergie thinks none of you guys actually get laid much
 
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.
 
On Aug 22, 11:25 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] 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
 
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> [email protected] 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.
 
On Aug 23, 7:01 am, [email protected] 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!
 
On Aug 23, 7:52 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:31 am, SMS <[email protected]> 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 *****
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.
 
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] 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.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> 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.
 
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> 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 **** pouring
from the far left.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> SMS <[email protected]> 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.
 

Similar threads