Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> In the special case of the legislator in the UK, I'd agree. But in all
> other cases, I think that it's irrational hyperbole.
>

Well with no helmet laws yet in the UK we are doing better than 37 of
your states and we rarely have "no participation without a helmet" rules
on events unlike many I see in the USA*. So I would say you have more
to fear from the politics of creeping mandatory helmets in the USA than
we have in the UK.

* see for example the recent Ride of Silence which says "Everyone is
invited to ride, so long as they have a helmet. If they do not, ask that
they not participate" http://www.rideofsilence.org/howto.php

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> So, if Big Brother tells you to wear a helmet, are you going to feel
> compelled to obey? With a 'tude like that, we'd still be in 'Nam.
>

Try that in New Zealand and see how far you get - see for example
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/d25b8ddf84829261

and see
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/9e438bddc8db9cba
for how the author, a New Zealand doctor, came to change his views and
the impact of the helmet law on New Zealand cycling.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> No national MHL anywhere on the close or distant horizon. If it comes
>>> up locally, I'll be there to oppose it; but we don't even have a
>>> motorcycle MHL here, so I think I can rest easy.
>>>
>> You have an MHL for motorcyclists under 21
>>
>
> There are many age limited laws: drinking age, driving age, voting age,
> age of consent, etc., etc. Should we oppose them all? Or only the ones
> that come afoul of *your* social vision, Mr. Special Tony?
>

Just pointing out that your statement "we don't even have a motorcycle
MHL here" was incorrect, nothing more.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
On 30 May 2006 18:55:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 30 May 2006 18:25:01 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> On 30 May 2006 17:01:24 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Michael Press wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No argument is worth winning.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true. But some arguments aren't worth having.
>> >> >
>> >> >And there's a whole spectrum of them that have more or less worth.
>> >> >
>> >> >But in usenet, every argument is worth a 1000+ post thread. Because
>> >> >there is no penalty for losing or offending, the lamers and flamers can
>> >> >go on and on and on.
>> >> >
>> >> >I seriously doubt any of you do this kind of argumentation at home.
>> >> >I'd bet serious money on it.
>> >>
>> >> The thing is, the helmet discussion is partially about politics --
>> >> however much the helmet proponents like to claim they wouldn't support
>> >> mandatory helmet laws, whether they realize it or not they're making
>> >> it easier for those things to be passed.
>> >
>> >In the special case of the legislator in the UK, I'd agree. But in all
>> >other cases, I think that it's irrational hyperbole.
>>
>> Sadly, if you live in the US, I think you're going to be surprised by
>> that. Helmet laws and dopey rules in places like parks requiring
>> helmets seem to be spreading. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look
>> that way.

>So, if Big Brother tells you to wear a helmet, are you going to feel
>compelled to obey? With a 'tude like that, we'd still be in 'Nam.

Depends on whether it's a cop or not. I don't want to have to ride
around breaking the law and risk getting pulled over by police -- I
want to stop the movement in its tracks. That's quite the oppopsite
of what you're suggesting with your "'Nam" comment.

>Thank Gawd, many here can think for themselves and toss the asses outta
>office.

I don't vote in all places in which I ride my bike. I ride a lot in
another state and another county. I guess I could be sending money to
the opposition political party in those places but I haven't come to
that. I have written at least one letter to government officials in
the other county about a cycling-related issue there (not helmets, but
something else that sucks) so I am trying.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On 30 May 2006 19:00:21 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 30 May 2006 18:25:01 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >An idea popped up earlier, and I haven't seen it addressed anywhere - I
>> >have read/heard that wearing a helmet improperly is worse than wearing
>> >no helmet at all. So, if the folks new to helmet wearing just slap one
>> >on their dome without regard to proper fitment, could this not be a
>> >source of over-representation of helmet-wearing injureds in the data
>> >set?
>>
>> This is interesting.
>>
>>
>
>Interesting? I'd wager about 60% of the cyclists I have seen have ill
>fitted helmets. And that's over two very different areas of the US.

The implication for this dicussion -- and for the evidence on the
effectiveness of helmets -- is interesting and worthy of further
thought.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:29:39 -0600, [email protected] wrote:


>Do you mean the "open letter" whose author first wrote to me saying
>this, before his bizarre switch to a public blackmail attempt?

Blackmail implies he was asking you to do something for him or give
him something. I don't think he did that.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> But in usenet, every argument is worth a 1000+ post thread. Because
> there is no penalty for losing or offending, the lamers and flamers can
> go on and on and on.

Which one are you?

clive
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >
> > > No national MHL anywhere on the close or distant horizon. If it comes
> > > up locally, I'll be there to oppose it; but we don't even have a
> > > motorcycle MHL here, so I think I can rest easy.
> > >
> >
> > You have an MHL for motorcyclists under 21
> >
> > --
> >
>
> There are many age limited laws: drinking age, driving age, voting age,
> age of consent, etc., etc. Should we oppose them all? Or only the ones
> that come afoul of *your* social vision, Mr. Special Tony?
>

Laws that are net health cost should be opposed.

MHLs for cyclists are such a case.
 
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Unkind language is still impolite, but there is a range of
> impoliteness, and it's not a binary condition.

Just out of curiosity, where would you put the unprovoked starting of a
thread where someone accuses another poster of deviant sexual behaviour?
Mildly polite? Somewhat polite? Not very polite at all? Positively
impolite?
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >
>
> So, if Big Brother tells you to wear a helmet, are you going to feel
> compelled to obey? With a 'tude like that, we'd still be in 'Nam.
>
> Thank Gawd, many here can think for themselves and toss the asses outta
> office.
>

So tell us, how many of the cycle helmet laws that exist in 37 of your
American states have been repealed?
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>> No national MHL anywhere on the close or distant horizon. If it comes
> >>> up locally, I'll be there to oppose it; but we don't even have a
> >>> motorcycle MHL here, so I think I can rest easy.
> >>>
> >> You have an MHL for motorcyclists under 21
> >>
> >
> > There are many age limited laws: drinking age, driving age, voting age,
> > age of consent, etc., etc. Should we oppose them all? Or only the ones
> > that come afoul of *your* social vision, Mr. Special Tony?
> >
>
> Just pointing out that your statement "we don't even have a motorcycle
> MHL here" was incorrect, nothing more.
>

Silly me, I thought we were talking about laws as applied to adults.
Perhaps you should post your whines to
alt.adultsaresounfairtojuveniles.misc
 
jtaylor wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No national MHL anywhere on the close or distant horizon. If it comes
> > > > up locally, I'll be there to oppose it; but we don't even have a
> > > > motorcycle MHL here, so I think I can rest easy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have an MHL for motorcyclists under 21
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> > There are many age limited laws: drinking age, driving age, voting age,
> > age of consent, etc., etc. Should we oppose them all? Or only the ones
> > that come afoul of *your* social vision, Mr. Special Tony?
> >
>
> Laws that are net health cost should be opposed.
>
> MHLs for cyclists are such a case.


When will you turn 21, taylor?
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > Tony Raven wrote:
> > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >>> No national MHL anywhere on the close or distant horizon. If it comes
> > >>> up locally, I'll be there to oppose it; but we don't even have a
> > >>> motorcycle MHL here, so I think I can rest easy.
> > >>>
> > >> You have an MHL for motorcyclists under 21
> > >>
> > >
> > > There are many age limited laws: drinking age, driving age, voting age,
> > > age of consent, etc., etc. Should we oppose them all? Or only the ones
> > > that come afoul of *your* social vision, Mr. Special Tony?
> > >
> >
> > Just pointing out that your statement "we don't even have a motorcycle
> > MHL here" was incorrect, nothing more.
> >
>
> Silly me, I thought we were talking about laws as applied to adults.

Oh? Where was it mentioned that it had to apply to all ages?
It remains the case that you do have a MHL for motorcyclists under 21
(Some of whom would be considered adults in UK.)

> Perhaps you should post your whines to
> alt.adultsaresounfairtojuveniles.misc

You just can't admit you are wrong can you? You can't even accept the
possibility that you might be wrong so have to resort to insult rather
than arguement.

...d
 
jtaylor wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > >
> >
> > So, if Big Brother tells you to wear a helmet, are you going to feel
> > compelled to obey? With a 'tude like that, we'd still be in 'Nam.
> >
> > Thank Gawd, many here can think for themselves and toss the asses outta
> > office.
> >
>
> So tell us, how many of the cycle helmet laws that exist in 37 of your
> American states have been repealed?

Are you going to knuckle under and wear a helmet when Big Brother tells
you to do so, taylor? No balls? Is that why you are so agitated on this
helmet thing?
 
Quoting Ed Pirrero <[email protected]>:
>Tony Raven wrote:
>>All I know is that the situation as you described it -
>>"I recognize that wearing a helmet when I ride on the road won't do me
>>any good. But my wife expects me to wear one, and I'm not going to
>>fight *that* battle. So I wear one."
>In the terms under which you've couched the two, no they are not at all
>similar.

Technically those are the terms in which _you_ described your
relationship.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
David Martin wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > Tony Raven wrote:
> > > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > >>> No national MHL anywhere on the close or distant horizon. If it comes
> > > >>> up locally, I'll be there to oppose it; but we don't even have a
> > > >>> motorcycle MHL here, so I think I can rest easy.
> > > >>>
> > > >> You have an MHL for motorcyclists under 21
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > There are many age limited laws: drinking age, driving age, voting age,
> > > > age of consent, etc., etc. Should we oppose them all? Or only the ones
> > > > that come afoul of *your* social vision, Mr. Special Tony?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just pointing out that your statement "we don't even have a motorcycle
> > > MHL here" was incorrect, nothing more.
> > >
> >
> > Silly me, I thought we were talking about laws as applied to adults.
>
> Oh? Where was it mentioned that it had to apply to all ages?
> It remains the case that you do have a MHL for motorcyclists under 21
> (Some of whom would be considered adults in UK.)
>

Let's see: minors can't vote, can't (legally) drink, can't (legally)
drive, can't (legally) have sex, etc. Do you think having to wear a
helmet on a motorcycle looms large on their horizon? Or do you think
that, unlike the dopey gang of UK AHZs, they might have bigger fish to
fry?
 
Quoting Ed Pirrero <[email protected]>:
>Michael Press wrote:
>>No argument is worth winning.
>But in usenet, every argument is worth a 1000+ post thread. Because
>there is no penalty for losing or offending, the lamers and flamers can
>go on and on and on.

Currently you have posted 40 articles to this thread. You posted 56 of 397
articles to the "summary - the disk brake debate" thread - ie, nearly 1/5
of the articles archived by GG from that thread. So, are you a lamer, a
flamer, or just a hypocrite?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> Let's see: minors can't vote, can't (legally) drink, can't (legally)
> drive, can't (legally) have sex, etc. Do you think having to wear a
> helmet on a motorcycle looms large on their horizon? Or do you think
> that, unlike the dopey gang of UK AHZs, they might have bigger fish to
> fry?
>

I guess USAians don't grow up as fast if you are a minor to age 21. In
the UK it is 16 (drinking & sex), 17 (driving) and 18 (voting)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Re: How big is big? (was: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience)
Replies
35
Views
782
UK and Europe
Bill Sornson
B
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
338
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
J
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
10
Views
363
UK and Europe
Mike Causer
M
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
257
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
278
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
Top Bottom Back