UK and Europe · Public discussion

Re: Helmet Nazis at It Again!

Email address hidden · 2006-09-26T11:21:58+00:00

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:00:12 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.) I don't remember if it was Frank Krygowski or someone else, but on a previous discussion, one of these AHZs once whined about not being able to go on a club ride if he didn't use a helmet. My suggestion that he simply form his own club went over like a lead balloon. I'm sure he knew that his club required helmets because the club's insurance company (if they have one) insisted on helmets. So, they think that disparaging helmets would help change this situation. What they don't realize is that the insurance companies might insist on helmets even if the helmets were only marginally useful (or even if the helmets were slightly harmful, unless it could be proven that the insurance company knew that). Any positive benefit, no matter how small, is in the insurance company's self-interest as the company doesn't pay for the helmets. But even if the helmets were completely useless, it would *still* be in the insurance company's interest to require them. Why? Because it is another hoop to jump through and the insurance company knows that people sometimes miss hoops, giving the company an excuse to deny any claim (but they will keep your premium anyway). In the UK, whenever insurance companies have tried this on, when they finally get to court the "protective" value of helmets has been completely discounted by medical experts and the insurers have been forced to abandon thier claims of reduced liability. In a country whose national motto should be "Scams R Us" rather than "In God we trust," corporate interests will get what they want, the public be damned. We no longer live in a democracy, but a corpocracy where the rule is more or less "one dollar, one vote" (even though some legislators really are well-intentioned and do the best they can.) In a corpocracy, the rules are simply stacked against the average person, and anyone who does not understand that the goal is not public safety, but corporate profits, is to say the least very naive. In the UK, there are no MHL's. This is partly due to a large body of educated people who are not afraid to speak out and question things (you should hear UK politicians being interviewed on the radio). The proliferation of MHL's in the US is unfortunately due to people in the US having either no such education, or no such indepenence of thought. Posters like Bill Z., Starr, Sornson, Ozark, Sharf, etcetera fit this bill to a "T".

Started by Email address hidden · 26 September 2006 · Last activity 27 September 2006 · 5 posts · 341 views

← Back to UK and Europe

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: UK and Europe
Published: 26 September 2006
Last activity: 27 September 2006
Original author: Email address hidden
Posts: 5
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 341
Views / 30 days: 0
Topics: Group riding

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Email address hidden
Archived post

26 September 2006, 11:21 UTC #1

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:00:12 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.)
Quoted message said:

I don't remember if it was Frank Krygowski or someone else, but on a
previous discussion, one of these AHZs once whined about not being
able to go on a club ride if he didn't use a helmet. My suggestion
that he simply form his own club went over like a lead balloon. I'm
sure he knew that his club required helmets because the club's
insurance company (if they have one) insisted on helmets. So, they
think that disparaging helmets would help change this situation.
What they don't realize is that the insurance companies might insist
on helmets even if the helmets were only marginally useful (or even if
the helmets were slightly harmful, unless it could be proven that the
insurance company knew that). Any positive benefit, no matter how
small, is in the insurance company's self-interest as the company
doesn't pay for the helmets. But even if the helmets were completely
useless, it would *still* be in the insurance company's interest to
require them. Why? Because it is another hoop to jump through and the
insurance company knows that people sometimes miss hoops, giving the
company an excuse to deny any claim (but they will keep your premium
anyway).
In the UK, whenever insurance companies have tried this on, when they
finally get to court the "protective" value of helmets has been
completely discounted by medical experts and the insurers have been
forced to abandon thier claims of reduced liability.
Quoted message said:

In a country whose national motto should be "Scams R Us" rather than
"In God we trust," corporate interests will get what they want, the
public be damned. We no longer live in a democracy, but a corpocracy
where the rule is more or less "one dollar, one vote" (even though
some legislators really are well-intentioned and do the best they
can.) In a corpocracy, the rules are simply stacked against the
average person, and anyone who does not understand that the goal is
not public safety, but corporate profits, is to say the least very
naive.
In the UK, there are no MHL's. This is partly due to a large body of
educated people who are not afraid to speak out and question things
(you should hear UK politicians being interviewed on the radio). The
proliferation of MHL's in the US is unfortunately due to people in the
US having either no such education, or no such indepenence of thought.
Posters like Bill Z., Starr, Sornson, Ozark, Sharf, etcetera fit this
bill to a "T".

Report
Bill Z.
Archived post

26 September 2006, 15:59 UTC #2

Quoted message said:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:00:12 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.)
Quoted message said:
In the UK, there are no MHL's. This is partly due to a large body of
educated people who are not afraid to speak out and question things
(you should hear UK politicians being interviewed on the radio). The
proliferation of MHL's in the US is unfortunately due to people in the
US having either no such education, or no such indepenence of thought.
Posters like Bill Z., Starr, Sornson, Ozark, Sharf, etcetera fit this
bill to a "T".
Jtaylor, like most anti-helmet zealots (AHZ), is a liar. The lot of
them can't stand anyone who actually does think for himself. Blaming
me for a few MHLs (including the one in California, where I live) is
particularly daft since I had written to my elected representative
opposing the laws. It might have helped - when it finally passed, at
least adults were excluded.
One of the things I pointed out was that we had people in town who
rode short distances (1 mile or so on quiet residential streets) to a
train station to commute to San Francisco, that their commute was
safer than driving the distance whether they used helmets or not (due
to most of the commute being by train), and that there was a lack of
places to store a helmet at the station (where vandalism is sometimes
a problem).
That's more than all these AHZs have done! Instead, they make absurd
claims and get ignored by our elected representatives, who don't want
to be associated with such crazies, all the more so when well-funded
interests are on the other side of the issue.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Report
Bill Sornson
Archived post

26 September 2006, 16:05 UTC #3

Bill Z. said:
Jtaylor, like most anti-helmet zealots (AHZ), is a liar.
In other breaking news, the sky is blue.
<eg>

Report
Email address hidden
Archived post

26 September 2006, 16:50 UTC #4

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:59:46 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.)
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:00:12 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.)
Quoted message said:
In the UK, there are no MHL's. This is partly due to a large body of
educated people who are not afraid to speak out and question things
(you should hear UK politicians being interviewed on the radio). The
proliferation of MHL's in the US is unfortunately due to people in the
US having either no such education, or no such indepenence of thought.
Posters like Bill Z., Starr, Sornson, Ozark, Sharf, etcetera fit this
bill to a "T".
Jtaylor, like most anti-helmet zealots (AHZ), is a liar.
Insults are a sign that the poster using them has no other support.

Report
Bill Z.
Archived post

27 September 2006, 01:03 UTC #5

Quoted message said:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:59:46 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.)
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:00:12 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.)
wrote:
>
In the UK, there are no MHL's. This is partly due to a large body of
educated people who are not afraid to speak out and question things
(you should hear UK politicians being interviewed on the radio). The
proliferation of MHL's in the US is unfortunately due to people in the
US having either no such education, or no such indepenence of thought.
Posters like Bill Z., Starr, Sornson, Ozark, Sharf, etcetera fit this
bill to a "T".
Jtaylor, like most anti-helmet zealots (AHZ), is a liar.
Insults are a sign that the poster using them has no other support.
It is not an "insult" to call a liar a liar, but simply a statement of
fact. I'll note that Taylor snipped the statements that showed he was
lying, specifically:
Blaming me for a few MHLs (including the one in California,
where I live) is particularly daft since I had written to my
elected representative opposing the laws. [followed by cogent
reasons as to why a MHL was not appropriate].
Apparently Taylor doesn't realize that he looks like a child when he
lies and then whines when called on it.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread