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



L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>
>>
>> With bicycles, it's legal provided the cyclists don't "impede the
>> normal and reasonable flow of traffic".
>>
>> "ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person
>> commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the
>> person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal
>> speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the
>> existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as
>> practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
>> (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this
>> section
>> if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to
>> the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following
>> circumstances:
>>

>
>
>
>> ...
>>
>> (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other
>> bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a
>> single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and
>> reasonable movement of traffic."
>>

>
> Discriminatory and poorly written laws micromanaging bicyclists
> within-lane position should be ignored.


Feel free to do so. And Please don't wear a helmet.
 
L

Lobby Dosser

Guest
Festivus <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Festivus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The behaviors we all routinely see:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Failure to stop and red lights and stop signs
>>>> 2. Riding 2 or more abreast in a traffic lane
>>> Why shouldn't bicyclists ride two or more abreast? It's our lane to
>>> use how we see fit. If you don't like what we're doing in our lane,
>>> pass us in another lane.

>
> From the Oregon Bicyclist Manual:
>
> "Riding side by side
> You and a companion may ride side by side on the road, but only if
> you don’t impede other traffic. If traffic doesn’t have enough room to
> pass you safely, ride single file."
>
> Clearly not every instance of two-or-more abreast riding is
> disallowed, but the circumstances determine proper behavior.
>


*I* did not say it was. Your attributions are scrambled.
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:


>> Obviously, however, you can't resist me.


> I never got the impression Bill swung that way. ;)


I was gonna say, I bet Wayne doesn't use THAT phrase very often! LOL
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When you can do the speed limit for as long as you're on the road,
>>>then you can claim the same right to demand cars use another lane to
>>>pass. Until then, move as far to the right as is practicable.

>
>> I was stuck behind a box truck and two garbage trucks on my way home from
>> work today. They were going much slower (varied between 15mph and
>> stop in a 50mph zone) than I ride a bicycle. Two lane road, no passing
>> zone. I had to just crawl along and deal with it.

>
> Your trucks were breaking the law as well. Slow moving vehicles are
> required to yield to overtaking vehicles if a passing lane is
> unavailable. ORS 811.425.


That's not an IL law.

> A rule which applies equally to slow moving bicyclists as well, incidently.


Whatever state you are refering to is either rather odd or you've not
interpeted it correctly.
 
J

John S.

Guest
On Aug 22, 5:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 22, 3:44 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 10:01 am, [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > On Aug 22, 9:04 am, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > On Aug 21, 6:34 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > > > On Aug 21, 1:53 pm, "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > > > Helmet - yes I agree helmets should be required.

>
> > > > > Visitwww.cyclehelmets.organdlearnabit about the issue before
> > > > > posting.

>
> > > > > - Frank Krygowski

>
> > > > Ah, yes, another one of those websites.....

>
> > > ... that has factual discussion, numbers, references, science, all
> > > those nasty things?

>
> > > Well, if you can't handle it, that's fine. Not everyone does numbers.

>
> > > - Frank Krygowski

>
> > Yes, I know you feel that you have a civil right to not wear a helmet
> > as some narrow minded motorcycle riders do. However, since someone
> > else will have to pay for your care and well being when you sustain
> > permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall
> > I think you have a civil responsibility to act in a mature manner.
> > Difficult though it may be.

>
> I know this will be hard for you to understand, but: I do wear a
> helmet when I ride my motorcycle. The situations appear equivalent
> only to people who don't understand the data - that is, people who
> don't do numbers.
>
> Are you such a person? If not, here's a project: Find the number of
> bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and motorcyclists who are being
> cared for because of permanent brain damage. Report back.
>
> Can't find that? Then try for the number of brain injury fatalities
> per hour exposure for each of those groups.
>
> Or try for the number of brain injury fatalities per year in the US
> for each of those groups.
>
> Why am I asking for such data? Because your phrase "when you sustain
> permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall"
> is superstitious nonsense. It's based on the idea that most (?) or
> many(?) bicyclists will suffer such damage.


That's a perfect example of carrying an argument to an absurd extreme
and I'm sure you know it. If we based the decision to use safety
equiment solely on whether most users would suffer injury in their
absence we would have very few pieces of saffety equipment. The kind
and severity of injury clearly is the deciding criteria in prescribing
safety equipment. For example the number of children injured by
burning clothing has always been quite small when compared to the
total population of children. And yet when it occurs the
conseqnences are tragic, sometimes life threatening and usually
permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll
children. The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who
receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when
they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and
usuallly have permanent consequences.

Do look up neurological damage consequent to head injury - if you
haven't had a serious head injury it will be an eye opener.

So, yes do continue to ride your cycle(motorized and non)
unprotected. And please accept my advance condolences if a fall
results in permanent paralysis of some body parts.


> But that is absolutely
> false. When you look at lists of sources of serious brain injury in
> America, bicycling isn't even on the list. It's down in the
> "miscellaneous" category. And when you figure the risk per hour
> exposure, it's also quite low.
>
> Of course, if you're not a numbers person, you may not understand
> that.
>
> And, BTW, if you think it's reasonable to dictate helmet wearing so
> others don't have to pay for care, there are much more important fish
> to fry. As an example, you should post your height, weight, detailed
> diet, exercise plan, and family history. We'll all want to be sure
> you're not one of the hundreds of thousands debilitated by strokes
> each year due to the factors I mentioned. We certainly don't want to
> pay for your care.


Ah, yes, because you can't control all risks we should not attempt to
control any of them. What a wonderfullly shortsighted way to approach
the risks of life.


>
> If there's a problem, of course, one possible remedy would be to tell
> you to bicycle more. One famous researcher (Mayer Hillman, of
> London's Policy Studies Institute) has determined that bicycling does
> 20 times as much good as harm.


Certainly sounds wonderfully logical. When applied to the individual
who has the right side of his body payalyzed after an unprotected a
fall from a cycle the benefit/cost ratio you quoted likely approaches
zero. Having fun with math yet????

> That's whether or not you wear a
> helmet. The helmets really don't help.
>
> - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
J

John S.

Guest
On Aug 22, 5:16 pm, Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:
> John S. wrote:
> > However, since someone else will have to pay for your care and well
> > being when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head
> > strikes the pavement in a fall I think you have a civil responsibility
> > to act in a mature manner. Difficult though it may be.

>
> Do you feel the same way about those who rely on others money for
> treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, peripheral
> vascular disease, obesity, etc.? They cost society far more than all
> cyclists who suffered head injuries put together.


Actually I do think that people who don't watch their weight, smoke,
use drugs to excess, etc., are acting in a completely unresponsible
manner. But we as a society do engage in a lot of education to
improve the lifestyles of such individuals. And where it makes sense
to legislate some decisions I would agree with it. Such as with usihg
a bicycle or motor cycle helmet, or seat belts, or seats for children
in cars.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:

> permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll
> children. The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who
> receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when
> they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and
> usuallly have permanent consequences.


> Do look up neurological damage consequent to head injury - if you
> haven't had a serious head injury it will be an eye opener.
>
> So, yes do continue to ride your cycle(motorized and non)
> unprotected. And please accept my advance condolences if a fall
> results in permanent paralysis of some body parts.


Do you wear your foam bicycle hat when climbing stairs, driving or a
passenger in a motor vehicle, and when using a step ladder? If not, why not?
Severe head injury is possible in all those activities.

Bicycling simply isn't dangerous and doesn't require safety gear any more
than climbling stairs does. If bicycling was more dangerous to my head
than other typical daily activities I might consider an effective helmet,
but since bicycle helmets are only effective for me falling over there
isn't much of a point. To justify these helmets when bicyling I end up
justifying wearing one practically 24-7, at least when I am not sleeping
anyway.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:16 pm, Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> John S. wrote:
>> > However, since someone else will have to pay for your care and well
>> > being when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head
>> > strikes the pavement in a fall I think you have a civil responsibility
>> > to act in a mature manner. Difficult though it may be.

>>
>> Do you feel the same way about those who rely on others money for
>> treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, peripheral
>> vascular disease, obesity, etc.? They cost society far more than all
>> cyclists who suffered head injuries put together.

>
> Actually I do think that people who don't watch their weight, smoke,
> use drugs to excess, etc., are acting in a completely unresponsible
> manner. But we as a society do engage in a lot of education to
> improve the lifestyles of such individuals. And where it makes sense
> to legislate some decisions I would agree with it. Such as with usihg
> a bicycle or motor cycle helmet, or seat belts, or seats for children
> in cars.


So, if for the common good a bunch of control freaks got together and had
it legislated that everyone walking on a paved surface had to wear knee
pads, elbow pads, and a helmet for their safety, for the common good,
you'd go along right? You wouldn't feel the least bit bothered that?
Having the government be used to force you to wear annoying gear thats
your own personal risk assessment says is not needed.
 
J

John S.

Guest
On Aug 23, 1:38 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
> > permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll
> > children. The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who
> > receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when
> > they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and
> > usuallly have permanent consequences.
> > Do look up neurological damage consequent to head injury - if you
> > haven't had a serious head injury it will be an eye opener.

>
> > So, yes do continue to ride your cycle(motorized and non)
> > unprotected. And please accept my advance condolences if a fall
> > results in permanent paralysis of some body parts.

>
> Do you wear your foam bicycle hat when climbing stairs, driving or a
> passenger in a motor vehicle, and when using a step ladder? If not, why not?


I can't comment on your stair handling skills so I'll leave that
decision up to you. But do consider that the speed is considerably
slower, there are no rapidly moving external threats to contend with,
etc. And I'm sure you know this.


> Severe head injury is possible in all those activities.
>
> Bicycling simply isn't dangerous and doesn't require safety gear any more
> than climbling stairs does. If bicycling was more dangerous to my head
> than other typical daily activities I might consider an effective helmet,
> but since bicycle helmets are only effective for me falling over there
> isn't much of a point. To justify these helmets when bicyling I end up
> justifying wearing one practically 24-7, at least when I am not sleeping
> anyway.
 
J

John S.

Guest
On Aug 23, 1:51 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 5:16 pm, Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> John S. wrote:
> >> > However, since someone else will have to pay for your care and well
> >> > being when you sustain permanent brain damage after your head
> >> > strikes the pavement in a fall I think you have a civil responsibility
> >> > to act in a mature manner. Difficult though it may be.

>
> >> Do you feel the same way about those who rely on others money for
> >> treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, peripheral
> >> vascular disease, obesity, etc.? They cost society far more than all
> >> cyclists who suffered head injuries put together.

>
> > Actually I do think that people who don't watch their weight, smoke,
> > use drugs to excess, etc., are acting in a completely unresponsible
> > manner. But we as a society do engage in a lot of education to
> > improve the lifestyles of such individuals. And where it makes sense
> > to legislate some decisions I would agree with it. Such as with usihg
> > a bicycle or motor cycle helmet, or seat belts, or seats for children
> > in cars.

>
> So, if for the common good a bunch of control freaks got together and had
> it legislated that everyone walking on a paved surface had to wear knee
> pads, elbow pads, and a helmet for their safety, for the common good,
> you'd go along right?


Nope, because the risk of serious injury is negligible. And you
argument is another example of carrying to a logical absurdity, but
I'm sure you know that.

>You wouldn't feel the least bit bothered that?
> Having the government be used to force you to wear annoying gear thats
> your own personal risk assessment says is not needed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


High on the list for my favorite control freaks is good old tobacco,
that american staple. It's production, sale and consumption should be
eliminated entirely.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
> On Aug 23, 1:38 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
>> > permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll
>> > children. The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who
>> > receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when
>> > they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and
>> > usuallly have permanent consequences.
>> > Do look up neurological damage consequent to head injury - if you
>> > haven't had a serious head injury it will be an eye opener.

>>
>> > So, yes do continue to ride your cycle(motorized and non)
>> > unprotected. And please accept my advance condolences if a fall
>> > results in permanent paralysis of some body parts.

>>
>> Do you wear your foam bicycle hat when climbing stairs, driving or a
>> passenger in a motor vehicle, and when using a step ladder? If not, why not?

>
> I can't comment on your stair handling skills so I'll leave that
> decision up to you. But do consider that the speed is considerably
> slower, there are no rapidly moving external threats to contend with,
> etc. And I'm sure you know this.


Add any speed or external threat and the capacity of the bicycle helmet
is exceeded. It's only good for a fall. That's all it's rated for.




>> Severe head injury is possible in all those activities.
>>
>> Bicycling simply isn't dangerous and doesn't require safety gear any more
>> than climbling stairs does. If bicycling was more dangerous to my head
>> than other typical daily activities I might consider an effective helmet,
>> but since bicycle helmets are only effective for me falling over there
>> isn't much of a point. To justify these helmets when bicyling I end up
>> justifying wearing one practically 24-7, at least when I am not sleeping
>> anyway.

>
>
 
R

Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen

Guest
The kindly Rev. overheard "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> saying on Wed 22 Aug 2007 08:02:13p:

> Bah! I want to poke people with soft cushions, with all the
> stuffing up one end.


You want to stuff what up your end?

;-)
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
revbob at crispen dot org
Ex Cathedra weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/

No animals were harmed during the making of this post. Except cats.
 
H

Hec Ramsey

Guest
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote:
> The kindly Rev. overheard "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <[email protected]> saying on Wed 22 Aug 2007 08:02:13p:
>
>> Bah! I want to poke people with soft cushions, with all the
>> stuffing up one end.

>
> You want to stuff what up your end?
>
> ;-)

The reason these groups have been saturated of late by the redolent
leftist rhetoric of our own "Rev" runt "Bob" is that the massively
self-absorbed, Binford-cheeked, ex-Boeing barnacle has been dislodged
from the workplace into a state of "retirement" and finds himself with a
surfeit of time but no shortage of keystrokes at his disposal.

A cursory glance at Bob's blogs and familial puffery websites renders
for us the image of a man obsessed with himself, desirous of huge inputs
of attention, and very nearly addicted to virtual exhibitionism.

Be it his musings over the Steelers, familial lineage, or the unending
core dump of rants, spin, and political opinioneering, "Bob" simply
craves a reaction.

In the truest sense this is seniors life trolling 101 - an all to
revealing look at what the Bart Simpson persona turned loose in a senior
center might be one day.

See the "Rev"-runt not so much as a benign but bored buffoon, but rather
as a pernicious reminder of what intolerant solipsism offers in its
climax state.

"Bob" doesn't really care if you agree with him, though that would be
well and good, though his troll volume decreases accordingly as threads
inevitably peter out under concordance.

But take the "Rev's" bait and he's granted another rollicking ride on
the "Bob"-o-lator, a device of his own all too imitable design and one
wholly self gratifying in application, the Usenet equivalent of one of
those auto-suck penis milking devices. And know this, the "Rev" is one
*****-happy self-abuser; all he asks is that you supply the friction and
he'll grimace and shudder in partisan ecstasy 24/7.

Think "Lawnmower Man" meets Howard Beale and you're in the right stadium.

But forget the refreshments and door fees. "Bob's" game is senior-itis
gone evil and wrong. The perversion of loneliness done up in a cult of
self-worship yet bereft of the slightest compassion regarding the wit or
wisdom of his active trollees.

The megalomania that defines the "Rev" doesn't leave room for the rest
of the world in any peer sense, one simply becomes part of the auto-suck
until siphoned of any humor, perspective or relevance.

Simply put, "Bob" spuges this medium in a virtual Bukake head shot-fest
of a Rushmore-like proportions.

As the last of the "Rev's" lifeless sheet of vile partisan jism runs off
Lincoln's chin, know that in "Bob's" world America is safe as long as
she remains his ideological cum-****.

So key up and start jacking, the Rev has another load of bile to release.
 
B

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

Guest
On Aug 23, 1:05 pm, Hec Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote:

You said the same thing in the other thread(s)?

Queerassed self-plagiarist!

You must have even worse arthritis that I do if you can't even type
something different each time!
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
> On Aug 23, 1:51 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:


>> So, if for the common good a bunch of control freaks got together and had
>> it legislated that everyone walking on a paved surface had to wear knee
>> pads, elbow pads, and a helmet for their safety, for the common good,
>> you'd go along right?


> Nope, because the risk of serious injury is negligible. And you
> argument is another example of carrying to a logical absurdity, but
> I'm sure you know that.


So you don't like others telling you that you have to wear annoying
protective equipment when *YOU THINK* the risk of serious injury is
negligible, that the cost/risk/benefit calculation says the equipment is
not needed. However, on the other hand you want to *FORCE* others to
wear annoying protective equioment when *YOU THINK* the risk/cost/benefit
calculation makes it worth it.

That sounds like a control freak to me. How about this, we all get to
determine our own risk/cost/benefit and decide for ourselves what
protective equipment we will wear for whatever activity we wish to do?

You stay out of my life, and I'll stay out of yours. It's that simple.
Stop trying to use government as a means to force me to live the way you
want me to live.

>>You wouldn't feel the least bit bothered that?
>> Having the government be used to force you to wear annoying gear thats
>> your own personal risk assessment says is not needed.- Hide quoted text -


> High on the list for my favorite control freaks is good old tobacco,
> that american staple. It's production, sale and consumption should be
> eliminated entirely.


Because prohibition of things you don't like and forcing other people not
to use them has worked so well in the past. What exactly drives people
like you? Does it give you a thrill to control other people? I don't and
will never understand the need to control other people's lives.
 
B

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

Guest
On Aug 23, 1:05 pm, Hec Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote:

~~~~~~begin


Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-
in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!
fe08.news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Hec Ramsey <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
pdx.general,or.politics,alt.politics,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational
vehicle
are long gone
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:05:58 GMT


~~~~~~end
 
J

John S.

Guest
On Aug 23, 2:07 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]
> History deleted the thread is getting too long.


Since we are throwing statistics about here's my own. Most of them
would seem to be self evident - such as there are a lot of
bicyclists, bicyclists do get head injuries and the information about
helmets reducing the chance of serious head injury. Helmets.org is
related to the WABA and those sites have a lot of good information on
cycling and cycling safety. Strange that they make no mention of
civil right to not wear a helmet of concern to some people. From our
cycling friends at helmets.org:

There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US.

784 bicyclists died on US roads in 2005. 92% of them died in crashes
with motor vehicles (720).

About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every
year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have
injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.

Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority
are not serious enough for emergency room visits.

1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury.

Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.

A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by
a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.

Many years of potential life are lost because about half of the deaths
are children under 15 years old.

Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are
estimated at $81 million each year.

Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are
estimated at $2.3 billion each year.

Helmet use in the US varies by orders of magnitude in different areas
and different sectors of our society. White collar commuters probably
reach 80 per cent, while inner city kids and rural kids would be 10
per cent or less. Overall, our best wild guess is probably no more
than 25 per cent. Sommers Point, NJ, where a state helmet law is in
effect, found that only 24 of the 359 students who rode to school in
one week of the Winter of 2002 wore helmets (6 per cent) until the
School District adopted a helmet rule. North Carolina observed 17 per
cent statewide before their law went into effect in 2001.

Helmets are cheap. The typical discount store price has risen from
under $10 to about $15, but there are still models available for under
$10 at major retailers.
 
J

John S.

Guest
On Aug 23, 3:17 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 1:51 pm, [email protected] (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> So, if for the common good a bunch of control freaks got together and had
> >> it legislated that everyone walking on a paved surface had to wear knee
> >> pads, elbow pads, and a helmet for their safety, for the common good,
> >> you'd go along right?

> > Nope, because the risk of serious injury is negligible. And you
> > argument is another example of carrying to a logical absurdity, but
> > I'm sure you know that.

>
> So you don't like others telling you that you have to wear annoying
> protective equipment when *YOU THINK* the risk of serious injury is
> negligible, that the cost/risk/benefit calculation says the equipment is
> not needed. However, on the other hand you want to *FORCE* others to
> wear annoying protective equioment when *YOU THINK* the risk/cost/benefit
> calculation makes it worth it.
>
> That sounds like a control freak to me. How about this, we all get to
> determine our own risk/cost/benefit and decide for ourselves what
> protective equipment we will wear for whatever activity we wish to do?


See the message below.

>
> You stay out of my life, and I'll stay out of yours. It's that simple.
> Stop trying to use government as a means to force me to live the way you
> want me to live.
>
> >>You wouldn't feel the least bit bothered that?
> >> Having the government be used to force you to wear annoying gear thats
> >> your own personal risk assessment says is not needed.- Hide quoted text -

> > High on the list for my favorite control freaks is good old tobacco,
> > that american staple. It's production, sale and consumption should be
> > eliminated entirely.

>
> Because prohibition of things you don't like and forcing other people not
> to use them has worked so well in the past. What exactly drives people
> like you? Does it give you a thrill to control other people? I don't and
> will never understand the need to control other people's lives.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, John S. wrote:

> See the message below.


We are not all using google groups.... this is usenet not some webforum
get with the program.
 
B

Brent P

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Shatzer wrote:

> I recall the motorcyclists making similar arguments. In some states,
> they've even managed to repeal the mandatory helmet laws - not to their
> overall benefit.


> For instance, when Arkansas repealed its mandatory helmet law,
> motorcycle fatalities increased 21% in a single year. Pennsylvania
> experienced a 51% increase. Und so weiter.


How much did motorcycling increase? I've heard that it's *MUCH* more
popular these days, including all sorts of TV shows about it. How many
died instead of becoming vegtables? The devil is in the details the control
freaks always leave out.

> Oh well, at least they got to feel the wind in their hair during their
> last moments on earth.


And yet a motorcycle helmet actually does something, but a bicycle helmet
is well, just a piece of styrofoam.