Raged motorist strikes two cyclists



In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, 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.
 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, 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
 
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote:
> On Aug 25, 10:20 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:43:59 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>> said in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> 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
 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, 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.
 
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:01:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

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

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:47:40 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> 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.
 
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:00:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> 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
 
On Aug 25, 4:59 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> 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
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, 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.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:00:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> 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.
 
On Aug 25, 8:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:00:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > <[email protected]> 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
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Aug 25, 8:13 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:00:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > <[email protected]> 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 ********.
 
In article <[email protected]>, 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 ********.

> 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 ******** 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.
 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, 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 ********.


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 ******** 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.
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, 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 ********.
>
>> 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 ******** 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.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:

>> You're the one who started spewing the ******** 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.
 
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.
 
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:37:22 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> 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 ********.


So you say. Actually, of course, it was the pro-helmet crowd who
tried to baffle them with ******** ("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
 
[email protected] (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.
>
>
>
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:37:22 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> 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 ********.

>
> So you say. Actually, of course, it was the pro-helmet crowd who
> tried to baffle them with ******** ("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.
 

Similar threads