Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

[Lobby Dosser]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political Issue.
>> Everywhere. Deal with it.
>
> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and presentation
> of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws. Why? Because
> they are a political issue.
>
> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_ is
> a political issue.
>
> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of the
> most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>
> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails of
> sacrificed animals?

That seems more your line of work.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>>> Woody Brison wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This is true. Also, what many AHZ's
>>
>> Who is trying to ban bicycle helmets? Nobody that I've noticed.
>
> "I am against helmets on all grounds" -- Brent P
>
>>> apparently don't understand
>>> (actually they do understand it but they pretend not to) is that a
>>> 30 mph collision does not usually result in a 30 mph head impact. By
>>> the time the cyclist's head impacts something, the rate of impact is
>>> greatly reduced by decelleration (sliding against the road, etc.).
>>
>> Which is part of why bicycling mishaps rarely result in more than
>> minor injuries foam hat worn or not.
>
> Spoken like someone whose head has bounced off the pavement numerous
> times.
>
>
>

Without a helmet.

 

[SMS]

Lobby Dosser wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Proof?

It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the laws
were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of what they
said.

The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was at
these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
Usenet in the helmet wars.

If I had to guess, they were probably presenting real data about how low
the accident rate for cyclists actually is, and how unnecessary a
compulsory law actually is. They may have been claiming that helmet laws
result in reduced levels of cycling, even though no data is available
that proves this.

This the approach that was successful in my club when the do-gooders
tried to make helmets compulsory on all rides, rather than letting the
ride leaders decide (eventually we could no longer obtain insurance
without a helmet requirement and we were forced into requiring helmets
on all rides).

It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
status affect ER visits, either one way or another.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Proof?
>
> It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the
> laws were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of
> what they said.
>
> The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
> wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was
> at these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
> helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
> Usenet in the helmet wars.
>
> If I had to guess, they were probably presenting real data about how
> low the accident rate for cyclists actually is, and how unnecessary a
> compulsory law actually is. They may have been claiming that helmet
> laws result in reduced levels of cycling, even though no data is
> available that proves this.
>
> This the approach that was successful in my club when the do-gooders
> tried to make helmets compulsory on all rides, rather than letting the
> ride leaders decide (eventually we could no longer obtain insurance
> without a helmet requirement and we were forced into requiring helmets
> on all rides).
>
> It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
> statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
> status affect ER visits, either one way or another.
>

And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do with
stopping a helmet law, is there?

 

[Bill Sornson]

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
>> All the Ships at S" <[email protected]> said in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
>>>> you, then.
>>
>>> Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and
>>> they want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real
>>> great Satan.
>>
>> Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
>> are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>>
>>> PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
>>> Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
>>
>> Yes, I'm British,
>
> Then eventually you WILL have helmets. Nanny wouldn't have it any
> other way. And mandatory sun glasses and sun screen on days when the
> sun shines. And classes on the save use of a bicycle. And a Licence
> to buy one. And insurance. And road tax. And ...

And pretty soon... No mention of Winston Churchill in textbooks.

 

[Picachu is a recovering sex slave]

On Aug 27, 5:57 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
> >> All the Ships at S" <[email protected]> said in
> >> <[email protected]>:
>
> >>>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
> >>>> you, then.
>
> >>> Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and
> >>> they want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real
> >>> great Satan.
>
> >> Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
> >> are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>
> >>> PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
> >>> Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
>
> >> Yes, I'm British,

Picachu was a heavy smack user but it found Gaaaawd and repainted the
main room in it's mind. Your allotment of french fries is due for
repayment, Jennifer.

 

[Picachu is a recovering sex slave]

On Aug 27, 6:39 pm, Picachu is a recovering sex slave
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 5:57 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
> > >> All the Ships at S" <[email protected]> said in
> > >> <[email protected]>:
>
> > >>>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
> > >>>> you, then.
>
> > >>> Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and
> > >>> they want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real
> > >>> great Satan.
>
> > >> Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
> > >> are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>
> > >>> PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
> > >>> Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
>
> > >> Yes, I'm British,
>
> Picachu was a heavy smack user but it found Gaaaawd and repainted the
> main room in it's mind. Your allotment of french fries is due for
> repayment, Jennifer.

Pastels are forbidden for roadway use.

 

[SMS]

Lobby Dosser wrote:

> And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do with
> stopping a helmet law, is there?

No, but they think they did! While to most of us they come across as
rather foolish on Usenet, each could have a totally different persona
when live in front of policymakers, and they could actually be effective
lobbyists when the anonymity of Usenet is stripped away.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
>>> All the Ships at S" <[email protected]> said in
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>> Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
>>>>> you, then.
>>>
>>>> Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and
>>>> they want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real
>>>> great Satan.
>>>
>>> Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
>>> are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.
>>>
>>>> PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
>>>> Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm British,
>>
>> Then eventually you WILL have helmets. Nanny wouldn't have it any
>> other way. And mandatory sun glasses and sun screen on days when the
>> sun shines. And classes on the save use of a bicycle. And a Licence
>> to buy one. And insurance. And road tax. And ...
>
> And pretty soon... No mention of Winston Churchill in textbooks.
>
>
>

I went to his funeral. Astonishing crowd. Even bigger than the "Ban the
Bomb - Yanks Out!" rally Easter weekend 1962.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do
>> with stopping a helmet law, is there?
>
> No, but they think they did! While to most of us they come across as
> rather foolish on Usenet, each could have a totally different persona
> when live in front of policymakers, and they could actually be
> effective lobbyists when the anonymity of Usenet is stripped away.
>
>

Or not. I suspect not. True Believers being what they are.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Picachu is a recovering sex slave wrote:
>
> Picachu was a heavy smack user but it found Gaaaawd and repainted the
> main room in it's mind. Your allotment of french fries is due for
> repayment, Jennifer.

This is the best argument yet for mandatory helmet use.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> ...If I take a fall while riding, then a barrier between
> my skull and the pavement is a GOOD THING....

Don't want any sense knocked in ya, eh?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political Issue.
> >> Everywhere. Deal with it.
>
> > Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and presentation
> > of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws. Why? Because
> > they are a political issue.
>
> > Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_ is
> > a political issue.
>
> > It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
> > perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of the
> > most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>
> > How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails of
> > sacrificed animals?
>
> That seems more your line of work.

Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
I make most of my important decisions.

How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
cracking?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 27, 7:37 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> They may have been claiming that helmet laws
> result in reduced levels of cycling, even though no data is available
> that proves this.

That was spoken from a position of ignorance. An accurate version of
that statement is: there is no data proving this that Steven M.
Scharf knows about. However, there is plenty of such data, even
though he's unaware of it.


>
> This the approach that was successful in my club when the do-gooders
> tried to make helmets compulsory on all rides, rather than letting the
> ride leaders decide (eventually we could no longer obtain insurance
> without a helmet requirement and we were forced into requiring helmets
> on all rides).

There's a good chance that's another statement from ignorance. My
club's insurance does not require helmets. Granted, his club is in a
different state, and perhaps every insurance company licensed in his
state does require helmets, but it's rather unlikely. The League of
American Bicyclists' event insurance is available in every state,
AFAIK, and it does not require helmets.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 27, 8:51 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do with
> > stopping a helmet law, is there?
>
> No, but they think they did! While to most of us they come across as
> rather foolish on Usenet, each could have a totally different persona
> when live in front of policymakers, and they could actually be effective
> lobbyists when the anonymity of Usenet is stripped away.

Anonymity of Usenet? That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who
goes only by SMS!

Of course, many of us know him as Steven M. Scharf, but he does try to
remain anonymous!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Lobby Dosser]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>> >> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>
>> > Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>> > presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>> > Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>
>> > Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_
>> > is a political issue.
>>
>> > It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>> > perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>> > the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>
>> > How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails
>> > of sacrificed animals?
>>
>> That seems more your line of work.
>
> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
> I make most of my important decisions.
>
> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
> cracking?

Facts.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_
>>>> is a political issue.
>>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails
>>>> of sacrificed animals?
>>> That seems more your line of work.
>> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
>> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
>> I make most of my important decisions.
>>
>> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
>> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
>> cracking?
>
> Facts.

Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
position?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 27, 1:18 pm, Jim Yanik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that people who
> fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet for cycles) cannot
> make a claim against their insurance.Then they can make their choice as
> they see fit,and live by the consequences of their choice.

But what is your definition of a "reasonable precaution"?

It seems to me it should include at least three factors. First, the
danger without the "precaution" must be significant. Otherwise you're
in the position of requiring armor to play hopscotch. Not that the
handwringers wouldn't like that, I suppose...

Second, the "precaution" must be effective. It must actually reduce
the hazard enough to be worthwhile. A pocket full of ping-pong balls
won't keep you from drowning, so it would be silly to mandate it for
boaters.

Third, the "precaution" must do more good than harm. It can't
increase the hazard from other effects more than it decreases the
hazard from its intended effect.

There are probably other qualifications we can think of, but: Bicycle
helmets fail on all three of those I mentioned.

First, and most important, bicycling is NOT a significant risk of
serious head injury. That whole idea is a fiction, developed
specifically to market bike helmets. Neither the total number, nor
the per-hour rate of significant head injury due to bicycling is large
enough to justify helmets. Cycling is roughly as safe as driving or
walking.

Second, bike helmets have simply NOT proven effective. Their
widespread use has not decreased serious head injuries. And this is
not surprising, since they are designed and certified only for
extremely mild impacts, not the sorts of impacts that cause the vast
majority of serious injuries and deaths - rare as those are.

Third, the imposition of helmet laws has been proven to seriously
decrease bicycling, despite claims to the contrary. The same is
probably true for the scaremongering helmet promotion. This does more
harm than good, not only because the helmets are ineffective;
bicycling is a strong positive force for health, and driving people
away from it by law or by fear causes losses in public health.

I've listed citations for all these facts in the past. If anyone
wants them, let me know here and I'll list the citations yet again.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Lobby Dosser]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>>>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>>>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>>>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved,
>>>>> _everything_ is a political issue.
>>>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>>>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>>>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the
>>>>> entrails of sacrificed animals?
>>>> That seems more your line of work.
>>> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
>>> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's
>>> how I make most of my important decisions.
>>>
>>> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
>>> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of
>>> wise- cracking?
>>
>> Facts.
>
> Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
> position?
>

Cute. But content free.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:31:46 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> said in
<mhIAi.21$J65.18@trndny08>:

>> Yes, I'm British,

>Then eventually you WILL have helmets. Nanny wouldn't have it any other
>way. And mandatory sun glasses and sun screen on days when the sun
>shines. And classes on the save use of a bicycle. And a Licence to buy
>one. And insurance. And road tax. And ...

So you say. That wasn't the impression our group got from its
meeting with the Department for Transport last week, though.

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