Re: Anyone know what's happening re: Helmet laws?

[[email protected]]

Alfred Ryder wrote:

> Perhaps one reason why some dedicated bike riders believe and
advocate that
> riding is dangerous is to impress themselves and their acquaintances.
It
> stokes the ego more to claim you have killed a fire breathing dragon
than to
> say you have killed a cow.

Hey Alfred--ever stop to consider the possibility
that those "dedicated bike riders" you mention might
actually KNOW MORE THAN YOU DO?

No, I don't suppose you have.

There are two types of people in this world:
(1) Those who understand and respect the danger of traffic.
(2) Those who haven't figured it out yet.

Of course the folks in group 2 are the ones who tend to
get seriously injured in traffic accidents. Enjoy.

Robert

 

[Alfred Ryder]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Alfred Ryder wrote:
>
> > Perhaps one reason why some dedicated bike riders believe and
> advocate that
> > riding is dangerous is to impress themselves and their acquaintances.
> It
> > stokes the ego more to claim you have killed a fire breathing dragon
> than to
> > say you have killed a cow.
>
> Hey Alfred--ever stop to consider the possibility
> that those "dedicated bike riders" you mention might
> actually KNOW MORE THAN YOU DO?
>
> No, I don't suppose you have.
>
> There are two types of people in this world:
> (1) Those who understand and respect the danger of traffic.
> (2) Those who haven't figured it out yet.
>
> Of course the folks in group 2 are the ones who tend to
> get seriously injured in traffic accidents. Enjoy.
>
> Robert
>

I am sure many "dedicated bike riders" know more than I do.

I understand and respect the danger of traffic. But do not accept
nor advocate that riding is dangerous. In my experience it is not
dangerous. I got my first bicycle in 1948 and during the past years
have ridden between 3,500 and 5,500 miles a year. My bicycles
have never been touched by any other vehicle. But I have totaled
both a motorcycle and Corvette and both times ended up in the
hospital for a while.

 

[John Kulczycki]

Paul R wrote:

>
>
>Paul, feeling like banging my head against a wall.....
>
>
>
>
>
Do you wear a helmet to do that?

 

[[email protected]]

Alfred Ryder wrote:

> I am sure many "dedicated bike riders" know more than I do.

But when one of these riders has an opinion you don't like,
it must be due to some underlying psychological problem.
Got it.

> I understand and respect the danger of traffic. But do not accept
> nor advocate that riding is dangerous. In my experience it is not
> dangerous. I got my first bicycle in 1948 and during the past years
> have ridden between 3,500 and 5,500 miles a year. My bicycles
> have never been touched by any other vehicle.

Ahh I get it--you've been injured while driving and while motorcycling
but never while cycling. Therefore, cycling is not dangerous.

What magical feature do bicycles possess that makes them
invulnerable to motor vehicles? If you know, please share it
with the rest of the class.

> But I have totaled
> both a motorcycle and Corvette and both times ended up in the
> hospital for a while.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have similar stories. At what
point did you decide that traffic is not dangerous?

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> Admittedly, I haven't checked to see if you regularly get onto the
> driving, motorcycling, walking and jogging groups to subject them to
> your handwringing. If you do, give us a pointer to your posts. My
> bet, though, is that you mention the "traffic is oh so dangerous"
line
> only in connection with bicycling.
>
> And if that's true, your claim to your secret beliefs doesn't absolve
> you; in fact, it adds evidence against you. It means you're making
> negative statements _only_ about cycling, despite (supposedly) having
> the same negative beliefs about other activities. You _are_
> discriminating against cycling.

That is so idiotic I don't even know what to do with it.
Congratulations.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> There are two types of people in this world:
> (1) Those who understand and respect the danger of traffic.
> (2) Those who haven't figured it out yet.

I prefer this one:

There are two types of people in this world: Those who divide people
into two types, and those who don't!


OK, enough off-topic humor. Back to chuckling at Robert's on-topic
posts. ;-)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 9 Feb 2005 18:02:12 -0800, [email protected] wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>There are two types of people in this world: Those who divide people
>into two types, and those who don't!

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand
binary and those who don't.

Cycling is not a binary activity, as the recent failure of the
"cycling is dangerous" crowd to come up with an objective definition
of dangerous amply proves

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

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

[email protected] wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Admittedly, I haven't checked to see if you regularly get onto the
>>driving, motorcycling, walking and jogging groups to subject them to
>>your handwringing. If you do, give us a pointer to your posts. My
>>bet, though, is that you mention the "traffic is oh so dangerous"
>
> line
>
>>only in connection with bicycling.
>>
>>And if that's true, your claim to your secret beliefs doesn't absolve
>>you; in fact, it adds evidence against you. It means you're making
>>negative statements _only_ about cycling, despite (supposedly) having
>>the same negative beliefs about other activities. You _are_
>>discriminating against cycling.
>
>
> That is so idiotic I don't even know what to do with it.
> Congratulations.

I think that that post wins the prize in this whole debate, for the most
bizarre. I'm thinking that someone got a free yahoo e-mail account and
is impersonating Frank.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Admittedly, I haven't checked to see if you regularly get onto the
> > driving, motorcycling, walking and jogging groups to subject them
to
> > your handwringing. If you do, give us a pointer to your posts. My
> > bet, though, is that you mention the "traffic is oh so dangerous"
> line
> > only in connection with bicycling.
> >
> > And if that's true, your claim to your secret beliefs doesn't
absolve
> > you; in fact, it adds evidence against you. It means you're making
> > negative statements _only_ about cycling, despite (supposedly)
having
> > the same negative beliefs about other activities. You _are_
> > discriminating against cycling.
>
> That is so idiotic I don't even know what to do with it.

What you could do would be to show us the posts where you've railed
against other activities besides bicycling!

If, as I suspect, those posts don't exist, you might spend some time
reflecting on your true attitude toward cycling. If nothing else, it
may be time for a career change.

 

[RogerDodger]

What you could do would be to show us the posts where you've railed
against other activities besides bicycling!

If, as I suspect, those posts don't exist, you might spend some time
reflecting on your true attitude toward cycling. If nothing else, it
may be time for a career change.

I suspect that Robert is already trying to establish a new career - that of a public relations ******** artist - for the marketing interests of cycle helmet manufacturers.

Robert, I seem to recollect, mentioned on a post last year that he was aspiring to get a job as a journalist. In the same thread his postings made it it clear that he was an immature upstart with an hugely over-inflated opinion of himself.

 

[[email protected]]

RogerDodger wrote:

> I suspect that Robert is already trying to establish a new career -
> that of a public relations ******** artist - for the marketing
> interests of cycle helmet manufacturers.

That would be interesting, since I usually don't wear
one, and am more skeptical about their effectiveness
than most of the skeptics on this thread.

> Robert, I seem to recollect, mentioned on a post last year that he
was
> aspiring to get a job as a journalist.

I think you've got me confused with somebody
else there RogerDodger.

> In the same thread his postings
> made it it clear that he was an immature upstart with an hugely
> over-inflated opinion of himself.

This just gets more and more bizarre.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> What you could do would be to show us the posts where you've railed
> against other activities besides bicycling!

For some reason you equate "railing against" with pointing
out the danger in, but whatever.

In recent threads I have repeated statements similar to
this one from Dec. 16 in the Ontario MHL thread:

"Being in traffic is dangerous, by just about any definition you want
to come up with, whether you're in a car, on foot,
or on a bike."

On May 21 04 in the thread "First Helmet: Jury is Out"
I wrote:

"Cycling in traffic is dangerous, and walking in traffic
is dangerous, and driving is dangerous. Few people have any
appreciation of the dangers they face every day in traffic
before that danger comes clear in a shocking instant."

In June 04, in the thread "Road or Sidewalk" I wrote:

"Let me say it again: Traffic is dangerous. Whether you're
on a bike, moped, in a car, whatever."

Are you noticing a pattern here Frank? Notice how
I do not discriminate among different types of road users.

In March 04 in the thread "Another Cyclist's Death"
I wrote:

"Cycling in traffic is dangerous, as is driving, and
walking. Traffic is dangerous because people are
dangerous. A bed in traffic would be dangerous too."

A response to one of your ridiculous bed injury statistics,
there, I suppose. These are far from the only examples
but I've already used my lunch break replying to your
drivel. It's strange you don't recall any
of this Frank, since most of it came in responses to
your own posts. Your memory must be shot.

> If, as I suspect, those posts don't exist, you might spend some time
> reflecting on your true attitude toward cycling. If nothing else, it
> may be time for a career change.

You can comment on my attitude toward cycling when
you love it or appreciate it even one tenth as much as I do,
you bike-on-a-hook weekend warrior blowhard.

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > What you could do would be to show us the posts where you've railed
> > against other activities besides bicycling!
>
> For some reason you equate "railing against" with pointing
> out the danger in, but whatever.
>
> In recent threads I have repeated statements similar to
> this one from Dec. 16 in the Ontario MHL thread:
>
> "Being in traffic is dangerous, by just about any definition you want
> to come up with, whether you're in a car, on foot,
> or on a bike."

That was in rec.bicycles.misc, right?

>
> On May 21 04 in the thread "First Helmet: Jury is Out"
> I wrote:
>
> "Cycling in traffic is dangerous, and walking in traffic
> is dangerous, and driving is dangerous. Few people have any
> appreciation of the dangers they face every day in traffic
> before that danger comes clear in a shocking instant."

In rec.bicycles.misc, right?


>
> In June 04, in the thread "Road or Sidewalk" I wrote:
>
> "Let me say it again: Traffic is dangerous. Whether you're
> on a bike, moped, in a car, whatever."

Was that in rec.bicycles.misc?

> Are you noticing a pattern here Frank? Notice how
> I do not discriminate among different types of road users.

Sorry, Robert, but you most certainly did! You apparently post _all_
your "traffic is dangerous" messages exclusively to bicycling
newsgroups. And since you seem to have lost track of my initial
request, let me quote from it:

"Admittedly, I haven't checked to see if you regularly get onto the
driving, motorcycling, walking and jogging groups to subject them to
your handwringing. If you do, give us a pointer to your posts."

> These are far from the only examples
> but I've already used my lunch break replying to your
> drivel. It's strange you don't recall any
> of this Frank, since most of it came in responses to
> your own posts. Your memory must be shot.

I, for one, remembered that I asked for cases of you warning
_others_, on _other_ discussion groups - not just bicyclists on cycling
groups. At least on that account, my memory seems better than yours!

Your tossing in an offhanded remark about other road users doesn't
absolve you. It merely indicates that you aren't interested in scaring
motorists. You aren't interested in scaring pedestrians. You aren't
interested in scaring joggers, or motorcyclists, or Amish carriage
drivers...

You're all about posting _only_ to scare bicyclists about the dangers
of "traffic" - which you've defined as any road where there might be a
car. Yet you want us to believe you're not discriminating.
Astonishing!

> > If, as I suspect, those posts don't exist, you might spend some
time
> > reflecting on your true attitude toward cycling. If nothing else,
it
> > may be time for a career change.
>
> You can comment on my attitude toward cycling when
> you love it or appreciate it even one tenth as much as I do,
> you bike-on-a-hook weekend warrior blowhard.

Calm down, Robert. It's probably just job stress. You'll probably be
OK.