Raged motorist strikes two cyclists



Brent P wrote:
> In article <6GpAi.1599$0_2.47@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <DX9Ai.1419$0_2.892@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:


>>>> Ah, but I'm not. I'm all in favor of you doing WTF you want. As
>>>> long as you Accept Responsibility for your actions. You seem
>>>> unwilling to do that. You by chance a Democrat?


{Question never answered, of course}

>>> I take it you do not have any form of health insurance yourself and
>>> pay cash, right?


>> Wrong. Though the deductable and copay are high.


> So you're a hypocrite then. You demand others pay for themselves but
> you get to have insurance.


GET to have insurance?!? Wow, you're a whiner on top of everything else!
LOL

Bill "Pea-brained Brent just keeps topping himself" S.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you stop
>> being a control freak and stop bothering people?


> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If you'd
> written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds" I'd not've
> commented.


********. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet views
to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it your way.

>>> What a maroon.


>> Name calling is about all you have left at this point. However your
>> reading comprehension shows who the maroon is. If you could read you
>> might have noticed I don't care who wears a helmet.


> Make you a deal: stop writing stupid things and I'll stop pointing them
> out.


Nice bit of projection there.

> Bill "yeah, that'll happen" S.


Why don't you go find a bridge?
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <6GpAi.1599$0_2.47@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <DX9Ai.1419$0_2.892@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> [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?
>>>
>>> I take it you do not have any form of health insurance yourself and
>>> pay cash, right?

>>
>> Wrong. Though the deductable and copay are high.

>
> So you're a hypocrite then. You demand others pay for themselves but
> you get to have insurance.


Read what I Wrote. Not what you Think I wrote. Insurance is One way of
being responsible. Cash is another.

>
>>> The problem with the system created by the socialist control freaks
>>> is that the costs of paying cash have skyrocketed out of control.
>>> It's what happens when things are socialized either through
>>> government or insurance.
>>>
>>> But when you can prove bicycling without a helmet is an actual risk
>>> greater than everyday living and bicycling without a helmet isn't a
>>> net benefit, then we can talk. Trouble is, it's already been proven
>>> that bicycling is a net benefit with or without a helmet and that
>>> bicycling without a helmet is MUCH less a risk than everyday living.

>>
>> Trouble is, that does not matter.

>
> Only your control freakism and trolling. Find a better hobby,
> preferably something constructive.


No, it just does Not matter. It is a POLITICAL ISSUE.

>
>
>
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <PHpAi.1600$0_2.696@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you can't read what I've written. I've stated several times
>>> that the risk-benefit-ratio for a bicycle 'helmet' doesn't justify
>>> wearing one. If I were to choose to wear one when biking I would
>>> have to choose to wear one for so many activities it would be silly.
>>> Bicycling simply isn't that dangerous and the benefit from helmets
>>> very slim. As I

>> stated
>>> before, I am over 6' tall, just falling over I am beyond the
>>> helmet's capabilities.

>>
>> Here's a little something from one of the common cites:
>>
>> "It is not cycling which is dangerous, but motor traffic."
>>
>> Obviously the solution is to remove All non-motorized traffic from
>> the roads.

>
> Go back under your bridge troll.
>
>
>


Hey, it was in one of the cites your lot keeps yammering about.
 
In article <kBrAi.981$j23.482@trndny06>, Lobby Dosser wrote:

> Read what I Wrote. Not what you Think I wrote. Insurance is One way of
> being responsible. Cash is another.


So you're just trolling then.

>> Only your control freakism and trolling. Find a better hobby,
>> preferably something constructive.


> No, it just does Not matter. It is a POLITICAL ISSUE.


The problem with the USA is that everything is made into a "POLITICAL
ISSUE", hence everything becomes ****.
 
In article <%CrAi.982$j23.30@trndny06>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <PHpAi.1600$0_2.696@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe you can't read what I've written. I've stated several times
>>>> that the risk-benefit-ratio for a bicycle 'helmet' doesn't justify
>>>> wearing one. If I were to choose to wear one when biking I would
>>>> have to choose to wear one for so many activities it would be silly.
>>>> Bicycling simply isn't that dangerous and the benefit from helmets
>>>> very slim. As I
>>> stated
>>>> before, I am over 6' tall, just falling over I am beyond the
>>>> helmet's capabilities.
>>>
>>> Here's a little something from one of the common cites:
>>>
>>> "It is not cycling which is dangerous, but motor traffic."
>>>
>>> Obviously the solution is to remove All non-motorized traffic from
>>> the roads.

>>
>> Go back under your bridge troll.
>>
>>
>>

>
> Hey, it was in one of the cites your lot keeps yammering about.


You must be deeply confused, because I made no such cite. Go back under
your bridge.
 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you stop
>>> being a control freak and stop bothering people?


>> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If you'd
>> written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds" I'd not've
>> commented.

>
> ********. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet
> views to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it
> your way.


Dude, you truly are delusional and paranoid (quite the two-fer). I'm pro
the CHOICE to wear lids, and react to people who give those who do so grief.
I'm not in favor of MHLs.

Please, buy yourself a clue.

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

> A-D-D much?!? (Many health plans offer decent mental coverage. You might
> want to check!) LOL


You're such a sad sack. Such a poor loser.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>> wrote:
>>>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you stop
>>>> being a control freak and stop bothering people?

>
>>> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If you'd
>>> written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds" I'd not've
>>> commented.

>>
>> ********. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet
>> views to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it
>> your way.

>
> Dude, you truly are delusional and paranoid (quite the two-fer).


Yet more insults. You've been content free now for some time. Loser.

> I'm pro
> the CHOICE to wear lids, and react to people who give those who do so grief.
> I'm not in favor of MHLs.


Given your posts the only choice you respect is one that matches your
own.

> Please, buy yourself a clue.


Yet you have a problem with my views. Guess that makes you just a garden
variety troll. That's even worse.
 
On Aug 21, 5:07 pm, Festivus <[email protected]> wrote:

> But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
> this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
> ought to be able to make your own call.


If all individuals paid for their own hospitalization,
that'd be fine, but we pay as a group. Insurance premiums
and taxes. It makes sense to try to protect the group
from excessive levies.

Wood
 
On Aug 25, 9:49 am, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
> > 1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
> > believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
> > somehow worthless.

>
> Because that is what it is. When I think of helmet, I think of something
> like a motorcycle helmet or combat helmet or batting helmet, not a
> flimsy foam cap. Calling it a 'helmet' is quite misleading IMO because it
> gives people the impression that it is a protective device of much more
> capability than it has.


I'm reminded of Don Quixote, who got out his grandfathers'
old armor, and the helm didn't have a visor so he made one
of cardboard. He tested it and it was ineffective. So he
made a new one, but he didn't test that, because he was
getting tired of making them. These tests have to be real
or they're just a scam.

Note that a combat helmet is useless against a direct hit
with a 10-inch shell. All armor has a range of energy for
which it is effective. With the armor you're safer, within
that range. Below that range there's no point and above it
there's no point. The question is, what's the range and is
it worth it.

Note that while they test the helmets with a 14 mph
collision, and it's supposed to exhibit a certain shock
protection, it will reduce shock in a 28 mph collision. The
range doesn't cut off sharp, it decreases gradually.

> It's a question of risk. Bicycling has a low risk of injury like many
> daily activities. If we aren't going to pad ourselves up for daily
> activities that actually are just as more risky than bicycling, why
> should we do it for bicycling?


This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
walking.

Wood
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <kBrAi.981$j23.482@trndny06>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> Read what I Wrote. Not what you Think I wrote. Insurance is One way
>> of being responsible. Cash is another.

>
> So you're just trolling then.


No. Paying for insurance is One way of being responsible.
>
>>> Only your control freakism and trolling. Find a better hobby,
>>> preferably something constructive.

>
>> No, it just does Not matter. It is a POLITICAL ISSUE.

>
> The problem with the USA is that everything is made into a "POLITICAL
> ISSUE", hence everything becomes ****.


If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political Issue.
Everywhere. Deal with it.

>
>
>
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <%CrAi.982$j23.30@trndny06>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <PHpAi.1600$0_2.696@trndny07>, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can't read what I've written. I've stated several times
>>>>> that the risk-benefit-ratio for a bicycle 'helmet' doesn't justify
>>>>> wearing one. If I were to choose to wear one when biking I would
>>>>> have to choose to wear one for so many activities it would be
>>>>> silly. Bicycling simply isn't that dangerous and the benefit from
>>>>> helmets very slim. As I
>>>> stated
>>>>> before, I am over 6' tall, just falling over I am beyond the
>>>>> helmet's capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a little something from one of the common cites:
>>>>
>>>> "It is not cycling which is dangerous, but motor traffic."
>>>>
>>>> Obviously the solution is to remove All non-motorized traffic from
>>>> the roads.
>>>
>>> Go back under your bridge troll.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Hey, it was in one of the cites your lot keeps yammering about.

>
> You must be deeply confused, because I made no such cite. Go back
> under your bridge.
>
>
>


What part of 'your lot' didn't you understand?
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you
>>>>> stop being a control freak and stop bothering people?

>>
>>>> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If
>>>> you'd written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds"
>>>> I'd not've commented.
>>>
>>> ********. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet
>>> views to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it
>>> your way.

>>
>> Dude, you truly are delusional and paranoid (quite the two-fer).

>
> Yet more insults. You've been content free now for some time. Loser.
>
>> I'm pro
>> the CHOICE to wear lids, and react to people who give those who do so
>> grief. I'm not in favor of MHLs.

>
> Given your posts the only choice you respect is one that matches your
> own.
>
>> Please, buy yourself a clue.

>
> Yet you have a problem with my views.


You are a TRUE BELIEVER. Only the Shriven would not seem to have a
problem with your views.
 
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 05:57:23 -0000, Woody Brison wrote:

> If all individuals paid for their own hospitalization,
> that'd be fine, but we pay as a group. Insurance premiums
> and taxes. It makes sense to try to protect the group
> from excessive levies.


Maybe people who want to exercise their right to not wear seat belts,
helmets etc would be willing to sign an agreement that, if they require
hospitalization as a result, they be taken out the back and shot instead.

No more physical suffering for them, less financial suffering for the
rest of us. It's a win-win solution!
 
On Aug 27, 12:44 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> > wrote:
> >> Brent P wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> people like yourself are telling me to wear one. Why don't you
> >>>>> stop being a control freak and stop bothering people?

>
> >>>> Find a single post where I've told anyone to wear a helmet. If
> >>>> you'd written "...I oppose bicycle helmet /laws/ on all grounds"
> >>>> I'd not've commented.

>
> >>> ********. You've been commenting for sometime with your pro-helmet
> >>> views to the point of belittling and name calling for not seeing it
> >>> your way.

>
> >> Dude, you truly are delusional and paranoid (quite the two-fer).

>
> > Yet more insults. You've been content free now for some time. Loser.

>
> >> I'm pro
> >> the CHOICE to wear lids, and react to people who give those who do so
> >> grief. I'm not in favor of MHLs.

>
> > Given your posts the only choice you respect is one that matches your
> > own.

>
> >> Please, buy yourself a clue.

>
> > Yet you have a problem with my views.

>
> You are a TRUE BELIEVER. Only the Shriven would not seem to have a
> problem with your views.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


When are these guys getting killed or something? I haven't been paying
attention much.
 
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:04:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> said in
<fOmAi.5560$yv3.1687@trndny01>:

>>>> Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
>>>> information for the larger number of politicians who did not already
>>>> know.


>>>Dream On!


>> Check Hansard for the United Kingdom parliament, 23 April 2004.
>> Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, defeated.


>And?


You will discover that people advancing the kinds of arguments that
Frank and I advance, were able to successfully prevent the passage
of a helmet law.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:06:14 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> said in
<qPmAi.5561$yv3.4598@trndny01>:

>>>> So you say, but as it turns out it's people like Frank and I who
>>>> have successfully opposed helmet laws,
>>>Really? I doubt it.

>> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Martlew_bill

>And?


And then stop asserting that the approach which worked, doesn't
work.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:47:04 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>> Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact with
>> immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed the cyclist
>> was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}


>Indeed, this is one of the most frequent mis-representations of the
>AHZ's. It's actually rare that an accident is such that the impact on
>the head is equivalent to the initial impact.


******** on several levels.

First, there is no such thing as an "anti-helmet zealot" (test: find
anyone who is seeking to pass a law mandating the non-use of
helmets).

Second, I have never seen anyone suggest that the impact speed is
the same as the travelling speed, only that the impact speeds for
which helmets are specified arc well below the likely impact speeds
in any real world situation.

Third, the main cause of seriously debilitating head injuries is
rotational impacts, and the only research which directly addresses
this shows that helmets actually make these worse.

Fourth, the forces involved in any collision with a motor vehicle
will be well outside the capacity of a bicycle helmet. Estimates of
the forces i real-life crashes typically exceed the rated capacity
of a competition motorsport helmet, according to the leading helmet
test lab in the UK.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
In article <[email protected]>, Woody Brison wrote:

> This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
> 5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
> riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
> so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
> energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
> a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
> walking.


Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.
 

Similar threads