The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicleare long gone



B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 24, 8:29 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> John S? wrote:
> > ...
> > Google is well designed and works great. You need to get a more up to
> > date interface. One that allows you to scroll easily between messages
> > and keep things in context. It will reduce the chances of your
> > becoming confused in the future on simple topics like this....

>
> When my news-feed temporarily went down, I reverted to Gurgle Gropes
> [1], and the slow speed, screwed up format of attribution names, munging
> of headers and worst of all, the limits on how many posts could be sent
> annoyed the hell out of me.
>
> [1] gene-speak for Google Groups.


glad you like it, campesino
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
On Aug 25, 9:30 am, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844 or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681 rec.autos.driving:685079

>
> >[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

>
> >> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must
> >> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is it
> >> refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special danger
> >> which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all other
> >> forms of risk?

>
> >It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
> >state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted.

>
> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must
> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.


tell him it doesn't go with their eyes
 
L

Lobby Dosser

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

> Lobby Dosser WHO? wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 24, 7:32 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
>>>> state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
>>>> unbelted.
>>> Don't compare bike helmets and seat belts. They are much different
>>> in their effectiveness.

>>
>> But no different in the mandatory nature of the laws.
>>
>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to work in 35 mph head-on
>>> collisions, which are realistic replications of actual car crashes.

>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> Bike helmets are designed and tested to protect only a disembodied
>>> head (no body mass driving the collision) in a simple linear
>>> collision (not the more damaging rotational accelerations) at a mere
>>> 14 mph (much less than the impact speed of, say, a "left hook"
>>> collision with a car).

>>
>> You want to volunteer for testing?
>>
>>> This standard was strongly criticized at its inception as being far
>>> too weak for any real protection. It's designed only to replicate a
>>> "Laugh-In Fall," but with no body. But Snell engineers correctly
>>> claimed that anything that would protect against a really serious
>>> crash would be unwearable.

>>
>> So MC helmets are worthless....

>
> Frank was talking about testing standards for BICYCLE helmets. WTF do
> MOTORCYCLE helmets have to do with that?


Apparently they are unwearable.

>
> An average motorcycle helmet weighs about 8 times as much as a foam
> bicycle hat. Ya think that might make for some difference in
> effectiveness? And yes, a helmet that is perfectly comfortable to wear
> on a motorcycle in summer would be unusable on a bicycle in anything
> but winter weather.


You've done it?

>
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844
>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681
>>rec.autos.driving:685079
>>
>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is
>>> it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special
>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all
>>> other forms of risk?

>>
>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
>>state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted.

>
> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must
> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?


Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of us
don't pay for Any related head injury.
 
On Aug 25, 6:08 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
> Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of us
> don't pay for Any related head injury.


How much do you imagine you've paid for other bicyclists' head
injuries? How many dollars? Do you have a realistic, numerical
estimate?

- Frank Krygowski
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:25:49 -0000, [email protected] said in
<[email protected]>:

>How much do you imagine you've paid for other bicyclists' head
>injuries? How many dollars? Do you have a realistic, numerical
>estimate?


And that's before you factor in how many genuinely serious injuries
might be preventable by helmets.

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
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> On Aug 25, 6:08 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Obey the law. If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest
>> of us don't pay for Any related head injury.

>
> How much do you imagine you've paid for other bicyclists' head
> injuries? How many dollars? Do you have a realistic, numerical
> estimate?


The cost is not the issue. Is it.
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> writes:
> [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844
>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681
>>>rec.autos.driving:685079
>>>
>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet? Is
>>>> it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special
>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than all
>>>> other forms of risk?
>>>
>>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK, every
>>>state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you unbelted.

>>
>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what must
>> a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?

>
> Obey the law.


What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded
Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers
in order to walk around like everybody else?

What if The Law said you had to either get on a ship
and go to some other country or countries that might
not accept you, or suffer the consequences of
sticking around?

> If the law says wear a helmet and you don't, the rest of us
> don't pay for Any related head injury.


Even if a car driver sets out to purposefully run-over
any unhelmeted cyclists they see?

What if there are non-head injuries (which are more probable?)

What if you "accidentally"/negligently run over from
behind, an unhelmeted cyclist while more-or-less trying
to aim your overweight chariot?

You and your stupid notions are an especially evil bane
on civil society.

There are reasons to wear bike helmets, with a spectrum
of neccessity. But you haven't addressed any of them.

All you can come up with is: "obey the law".

In these car vs bike threads, they invariably begin with
complaints about riders not obeying the law -- blowing
stop signs, etc. But that's always just an "in" to
complain about bikes being on the road at all, and the
discussions degenerate into complaints about how hard
it is to pass a bicycle. And if you're such an impatient
asshole, the rider /wants/ you to be ahead of him/her.

Meanwhile I regularly see drivers' flagrant violations of
speed zones, Right-Turn-Only, Do-Not-Enter, No-Left-Turn,
not stopping at the sidewalk when they egress back-alleys
or lanes, etc. And they especially do those things just
to blow ahead of the cyclist ahead of them.

Obey the law <sneer>? Yeah, sure.

I used some salty language at the top of this thread
(when Paul Berg suggested bike licensing,) and now
I regret it, because I try to respect r.b.m as a
family ng. I'm sure tempted to use even saltier
language now. But the product of the extremes ...

And you're not worth the artistry.

So, go crawl back into your hole. Maybe put a
bike helmet on, in case the earth caves-in on ya.

In the meantime, be fruitful, multiply, and go forth.

Maybe some of your offspring will eventually get it
right. I have no hopes, but what can ya hope for?

Obeying the law for the sake of obeying the law
is slavery.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> writes:
>> [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844
>>>>or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681
>>>>rec.autos.driving:685079
>>>>
>>>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>>>> Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special
>>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than
>>>>> all other forms of risk?
>>>>
>>>>It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK,
>>>>every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
>>>>unbelted.
>>>
>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?

>>
>> Obey the law.

>
> What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded
> Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers
> in order to walk around like everybody else?


OK, we Finally got to the Nazi reference!!

Bye.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> writes:
>>> [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> ref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com pdx.general:162844
>>>>> or.politics:705803 alt.politics:3574095 rec.bicycles.misc:470681
>>>>> rec.autos.driving:685079
>>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>>>>> Is it refusal to bicycle helmets only? If so, what's the special
>>>>>> danger which makes bicycling without a helmet so much worse than
>>>>>> all other forms of risk?
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't. Do you wear your seatbelt when riding in a car? AFIK,
>>>>> every state requires that you do and fines you if they catch you
>>>>> unbelted.
>>>>
>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>>
>>> Obey the law.

>>
>> What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded
>> Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers
>> in order to walk around like everybody else?

>
> OK, we Finally got to the Nazi reference!!


Isn't wearing a plastic bike lid comparable to being herded on trains and
starved and gassed? After all, ****** WORE A HELMET!!!

Thread-ender invoked...........BS
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> writes:

>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>>>
>>>> Obey the law.
>>>
>>> What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded
>>> Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers
>>> in order to walk around like everybody else?

>>
>> OK, we Finally got to the Nazi reference!!

>
> Isn't wearing a plastic bike lid comparable to being herded on trains and
> starved and gassed?


If I, in my local jurisdiction, get pulled-over, hassled
and fined for not wearing a helmet, it would cost me at
least $280 Cdn.

Lots of cyclists here get by without (being ticketed
for not wearing) legislated egg carton hats.
Others don't.

That's how she goes, eh. Even in a total MHL zone like
British Columbia, enforcement is arbitrary and inconsistent.

When laws are enforced inconsistently, they should especially
be reconsidered.

> After all, ****** WORE A HELMET!!!


He didn't (have to) wear a Magen David on his lapel.

Nor did the assholes who voted for him.

And he was pretty bare-headed at his shrieking
Nuremburg diatribe. No helmet there.

Come to think of it, I don't think ol' Addy even
rode a bike. He just stood up in a slow-moving
convertible MB through Vienna, one arm stiltedly
extended outward, and the other hand gripping onto
the top of the windshield for dear life.

"Obey the law ..."

I could resort to some Vancouver East Ender language here,
but I won't this time. I shall rise above temptation, and
be a better person than I might descend to.

When we do stuff out of blind obiesence to The Law, we become
less than Human. We'd become non-creative, routine ants.

The Law is sometimes dehumanizing.

Having to wear a helmet is dehumanizing.
Yer out on the street, looking like RoboCop.
Not like a guy out to fetch some groceries
or a paycheque from the temp labour office.

Note how bike helmet colours are so generally
so robot-ly metallic.

I guess those metallic colours give the impression
that bike helmets are more significantly durable
than they really are. They look like they're made
out of titanium, like the outer skin of an SR-1,
to sustain extreme pressures and temperatures.

If you wanna wear such an egg carton that thinks
it's armour-plated, that's fine with me. Go for it.

How are you about me opting not to, like when I
need my freshly washed hair to air-dry, even
though The Law says I must wear the styrofoam
in order to legally ride? Am I a criminal?
A Bad Influence? A ruiner of moral conduct?

Well, I indeed am all those things, but it
doesn't have anything to do with robotic-looking
bike helmets.


klahowia,
Tom

--
Legalize it.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:

> "Obey the law ..."
>
> I could resort to some Vancouver East Ender language here,
> but I won't this time. I shall rise above temptation, and
> be a better person than I might descend to.

^^^^^^^^^^

I shouldn't have said that.

There's no shame or degradation in being a Vancouver East Ender.
In fact, I think we East Enders have developed a certain
intercultural sociability that the rest of the world
could learn from. Heck, Van East /is/ pretty much the
whole human world all rolled up into one area.

If/when I descend into bad stuff, it'll be done
by me, personally & individually, without
representing anybody else.

It is important to me that my fellow East Enders are
not adversely implicated, affected or impugned by
my own conduct.

Lotsa bike ridin' goes on here, too. Much of which
ain't legal.

Obey The Law -- yeah, right.
Toe the line.


cheers,
Tom

--
Cedar Cottage Rulz!
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
B

Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S

Guest
god damned Canadians never can shut up
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>>>> Quit with the cutesy implications and spell it out: Exactly what
>>>>>> must a person do for you to NOT wish them to wear this bracelet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obey the law.
>>>>
>>>> What if the law says you have to stitch a colour-coded
>>>> Magen David on your coat and carry special ID papers
>>>> in order to walk around like everybody else?
>>>
>>> OK, we Finally got to the Nazi reference!!

>>
>> Isn't wearing a plastic bike lid comparable to being herded on trains
>> and starved and gassed?

>
> If I, in my local jurisdiction, get pulled-over, hassled
> and fined for not wearing a helmet, it would cost me at
> least $280 Cdn.
>
> Lots of cyclists here get by without (being ticketed
> for not wearing) legislated egg carton hats.
> Others don't.
>
> That's how she goes, eh. Even in a total MHL zone like
> British Columbia, enforcement is arbitrary and inconsistent.
>
> When laws are enforced inconsistently, they should especially
> be reconsidered.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Another turnip rolling in the road!!

ALL laws are arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced. Particularly
traffic laws. Odds are if you are not wearing a helmet, but otherwise
acting responsibly you will not get a ticket.

>
>> After all, ****** WORE A HELMET!!!

>
> He didn't (have to) wear a Magen David on his lapel.
>
> Nor did the assholes who voted for him.
>
> And he was pretty bare-headed at his shrieking
> Nuremburg diatribe. No helmet there.
>
> Come to think of it, I don't think ol' Addy even
> rode a bike. He just stood up in a slow-moving
> convertible MB through Vienna, one arm stiltedly
> extended outward, and the other hand gripping onto
> the top of the windshield for dear life.
>
> "Obey the law ..."
>
> I could resort to some Vancouver East Ender language here,
> but I won't this time. I shall rise above temptation, and
> be a better person than I might descend to.
>
> When we do stuff out of blind obiesence to The Law, we become
> less than Human. We'd become non-creative, routine ants.
>
> The Law is sometimes dehumanizing.
>
> Having to wear a helmet is dehumanizing.


Good Grief!! Your self esteem must not rise to the level of your ankles!


> Yer out on the street, looking like RoboCop.


Oh the Humanity!!

> Not like a guy out to fetch some groceries
> or a paycheque from the temp labour office.
>
> Note how bike helmet colours are so generally
> so robot-ly metallic.
>
> I guess those metallic colours give the impression
> that bike helmets are more significantly durable
> than they really are. They look like they're made
> out of titanium, like the outer skin of an SR-1,
> to sustain extreme pressures and temperatures.
>
> If you wanna wear such an egg carton that thinks
> it's armour-plated, that's fine with me. Go for it.
>
> How are you about me opting not to, like when I
> need my freshly washed hair to air-dry, even
> though The Law says I must wear the styrofoam
> in order to legally ride? Am I a criminal?
> A Bad Influence? A ruiner of moral conduct?
>
> Well, I indeed am all those things, but it
> doesn't have anything to do with robotic-looking
> bike helmets.
>
>
> klahowia,
> Tom
>
> --
> Legalize it.
> I'm really at:
> tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
>
>
>
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> writes:

>> When we do stuff out of blind obiesence to The Law, we become
>> less than Human. We'd become non-creative, routine ants.
>>
>> The Law is sometimes dehumanizing.
>>
>> Having to wear a helmet is dehumanizing.

>
> Good Grief!! Your self esteem must not rise to the level of your ankles!


I don't care about self esteem. I care about
other-people esteem. I recommend you try it sometime.

Anyways, go "obey the law" your officious self.


--
No esteem for you!
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> When we do stuff out of blind obiesence to The Law, we become
>>> less than Human. We'd become non-creative, routine ants.
>>>
>>> The Law is sometimes dehumanizing.
>>>
>>> Having to wear a helmet is dehumanizing.

>>
>> Good Grief!! Your self esteem must not rise to the level of your
>> ankles!

>
> I don't care about self esteem.


That says it all!
 
A

amakyonin

Guest
On Aug 24, 7:18 pm, Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when there's a
> > NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often dangerous to do
> > so.

>
> Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike
> like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>?


People like Bill enjoy being stomped on (right hooked) and won't
bother to stand up for their rights. Taking the lane *when
appropriate* is every bicyclists right. No bicyclist should have, or
feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a
cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their
destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
amakyonin anonymously snipes:
> On Aug 24, 7:18 pm, Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:


>>> When there's no need or reason to take the lane -- like, say, when
>>> there's a NICE BEAUTIFUL BIKE LANE PRESENT -- it's stupid and often
>>> dangerous to do so.


>> Oh, you mean I shouldn't take the lane with a nice and beautiful bike
>> like like this: <http://filebox.vt.edu/~aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>?


> People like Bill enjoy being stomped on (right hooked) and won't
> bother to stand up for their rights.


21,000 miles, no accidents, falls or crashes. Being a good driver as well
as an experienced cyclist (off-road before going skinny tire), I recognize
many dangerous situations before they unfold and act accordingly. But don't
let facts and information interfere with your cowardly sniping.

> Taking the lane *when
> appropriate* is every bicyclists right.


Of course it is, as I've stated repeatedly throughout these threads. (Even
above, I used the caveat "when there's no need or reason to take the
lane" -- inferring of course that often there IS need and/or reason.)

> No bicyclist should have, or
> feel the need, to compromise their safety for the convenience of a
> cager. A motor vehicle driver will not lose any time in reaching their
> destination while waiting a few seconds to safely pass a bicyclist.


In other breaking news, grass is green.

Yawn...