USA Cycling invites you to break your noggin

[Les Earnest]

Last year, USA Cycling announced a helmet rule change, allowing helmets
meeting a European standard called CEN to be used -- see
http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2109. The Chair and
Vice Chair of the Headgear Subcommittee (F08.53) of ASTM International
promptly contacted the USA Cycling staff to recommend that they
reconsider this change, pointing out that even though some helmets
meeting that standard also meet U.S. requirements, which are set by the
U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), many such helmets do
not. The key issue is that the CEN testing procedures can be fiddled so
as to get helmets to pass that are actually unsafe. Specifics on the
inadequacy of the CEN standard in the opinion of Dave Halstead, F08.53
Chair, are given at the end of this note.

Halstead invited USA Cycling staff members to come to his testing lab to
witness comparative tests of helmets meeting the CEN and the CPSC
standards. When I returned from a trip to Alaska last September I joined
the discussion and also urged that USA Cycling reconsider its helmet
rule change. I received friendly responses indicating a willingness to
reconsider but the invitation to witness comparative texts was not
accepted and nothing further happened.

Having tried and failed to get this matter resolved off-line, I am now
going public. Fortunately, Helmets meeting just the CEN standard cannot
legally be sold in the U.S. but you or your friends can get them
overseas and bring them back. Please do not succumb to the urge to buy a
sexy Euro helmet that might put you in a coma for awhile or that might
leave you with a permanent drool and impaired speech. Having been to
court on some head injury cases I can testify that it doesn't look good
up close.

If you would like to know what happened the last time we had really
stupid helmet rules, go to the Cyclops USA web site at
http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/, scroll down to September
1989 and read "The brain bucket bash."

-Les Earnest, Speaking for myself and not for any of the organizations
with which I'm affiliated


-----------------------------------


As pointed out in September 2006 by Dave Halstead:
"The issue is that the helmeted head form is unrestrained, it is not
riding a rail. As such, by playing with the geometry of the
shell/helmet you can get the helmet to spin on impact. The spinning
action attenuates or more correctly redirects the energy from a linear
motion to a rotational motion. The linear only accelerometers in the
head form record the low g's and everyone is happy. Here then is the
problem , if you do not get the spin, then you get the high linear g's.
If you do get the spin, the linear g's are in fact low, but the
rotational forces are high. It is a stupid test system. These helmets
will result in increased injury."


Dave also remarked:
"I do think that the error is in an attempt to make a direct comparison.
If the CEN standard required a restrained, direct impact then the
difference is not that much, but it does not require a restrained direct
impact. We tested two CEN compliant models here last week to the CPSC
standard. This was a case of the manufacturer stating `We will test to
the CPSC just to be sure but as it passes CEN we know they are fine,
except maybe for the label'. The best number we got was a 338 [g] and
the worst a 420. This is not a surprise to us and happens in almost
every case of a CEN helmet submitted to us for CPSC."

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:39:45 -0800, Les Earnest >
wrote:

>Please do not succumb to the urge to buy a
>sexy Euro helmet that might put you in a coma for awhile or that might
>leave you with a permanent drool and impaired speech. Having been to
>court on some head injury cases I can testify that it doesn't look good
>up close.

I'll assume you're not suggesting that it impossible to be put into a
coma or have other lasting problems if one uses helmets meeting the
CEN or CPSC standards.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Bill C]

On May 4, 7:12 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson >
wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:39:45 -0800, Les Earnest >
> wrote:
>
> >Please do not succumb to the urge to buy a
> >sexy Euro helmet that might put you in a coma for awhile or that might
> >leave you with a permanent drool and impaired speech. Having been to
> >court on some head injury cases I can testify that it doesn't look good
> >up close.
>
> I'll assume you're not suggesting that it impossible to be put into a
> coma or have other lasting problems if one uses helmets meeting the
> CEN or CPSC standards.
>
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

I think one of the problems right now, in a lot of areas, is USAC's
total disregard for US racing in it's goal to become the UCI's
favorite kissass.
They aren't making decisions based on what works , and we need here,
they are making them based on the UCI, and I'm pretty sure the UCI
isn't even doing what's best for racing in Europe, let alone what's
best here.
Bill C

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Les Earnest > wrote:

> If you would like to know what happened the last time we had really
> stupid helmet rules, go to the Cyclops USA web site at
> http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/, scroll down to September
> 1989 and read "The brain bucket bash."

Any requirement that a rider wear a helmet is already a brain-dead
proposition.

--
Michael Press

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article . com>,
Bill C > wrote:

> On May 4, 7:12 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson >
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:39:45 -0800, Les Earnest >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Please do not succumb to the urge to buy a
> > >sexy Euro helmet that might put you in a coma for awhile or that might
> > >leave you with a permanent drool and impaired speech. Having been to
> > >court on some head injury cases I can testify that it doesn't look good
> > >up close.
> >
> > I'll assume you're not suggesting that it impossible to be put into a
> > coma or have other lasting problems if one uses helmets meeting the
> > CEN or CPSC standards.

> I think one of the problems right now, in a lot of areas, is USAC's
> total disregard for US racing in it's goal to become the UCI's
> favorite kissass.
> They aren't making decisions based on what works , and we need here,
> they are making them based on the UCI, and I'm pretty sure the UCI
> isn't even doing what's best for racing in Europe, let alone what's
> best here.
> Bill C

Surely the purpose of the CEN allowance is to allow Euro racers (Tour de
California, Tour de Georgia, etc.) to come over here and race in their
sponsor's equipment.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Bill C]

On May 5, 2:53 am, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

>
> Surely the purpose of the CEN allowance is to allow Euro racers (Tour de
> California, Tour de Georgia, etc.) to come over here and race in their
> sponsor's equipment.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau /
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In this case you're probably right, and therefore it's justified, or
at least reasonable.
Bill C

[[email protected]]

On May 4, 4:39 pm, Les Earnest > wrote:
> Last year, USA Cycling announced a helmet rule change, allowing helmets
> meeting a European standard called CEN to be used -- seehttp://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2109. The Chair and
> Vice Chair of the Headgear Subcommittee (F08.53) of ASTM International
> promptly contacted the USA Cycling staff to recommend that they
> reconsider this change, pointing out that even though some helmets
> meeting that standard also meet U.S. requirements, which are set by the
> U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), many such helmets do
> not. The key issue is that the CEN testing procedures can be fiddled so
> as to get helmets to pass that are actually unsafe. Specifics on the
> inadequacy of the CEN standard in the opinion of Dave Halstead, F08.53
> Chair, are given at the end of this note.
>
> Halstead invited USA Cycling staff members to come to his testing lab to
> witness comparative tests of helmets meeting the CEN and the CPSC
> standards. When I returned from a trip to Alaska last September I joined
> the discussion and also urged that USA Cycling reconsider its helmet
> rule change. I received friendly responses indicating a willingness to
> reconsider but the invitation to witness comparative texts was not
> accepted and nothing further happened.
>
> Having tried and failed to get this matter resolved off-line, I am now
> going public. Fortunately, Helmets meeting just the CEN standard cannot
> legally be sold in the U.S. but you or your friends can get them
> overseas and bring them back. Please do not succumb to the urge to buy a
> sexy Euro helmet that might put you in a coma for awhile or that might
> leave you with a permanent drool and impaired speech. Having been to
> court on some head injury cases I can testify that it doesn't look good
> up close.
>
> If you would like to know what happened the last time we had really
> stupid helmet rules, go to the Cyclops USA web site athttp://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/, scroll down to September
> 1989 and read "The brain bucket bash."
>
> -Les Earnest, Speaking for myself and not for any of the organizations
> with which I'm affiliated
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> As pointed out in September 2006 by Dave Halstead:
> "The issue is that the helmeted head form is unrestrained, it is not
> riding a rail. As such, by playing with the geometry of the
> shell/helmet you can get the helmet to spin on impact. The spinning
> action attenuates or more correctly redirects the energy from a linear
> motion to a rotational motion. The linear only accelerometers in the
> head form record the low g's and everyone is happy. Here then is the
> problem , if you do not get the spin, then you get the high linear g's.
> If you do get the spin, the linear g's are in fact low, but the
> rotational forces are high. It is a stupid test system. These helmets
> will result in increased injury."
>
> Dave also remarked:
> "I do think that the error is in an attempt to make a direct comparison.
> If the CEN standard required a restrained, direct impact then the
> difference is not that much, but it does not require a restrained direct
> impact. We tested two CEN compliant models here last week to the CPSC
> standard. This was a case of the manufacturer stating `We will test to
> the CPSC just to be sure but as it passes CEN we know they are fine,
> except maybe for the label'. The best number we got was a 338 [g] and
> the worst a 420. This is not a surprise to us and happens in almost
> every case of a CEN helmet submitted to us for CPSC."

The CPSC's certification is for a 14 mph impact, dumbasses.

[Bill C]

On May 4, 7:54 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article >,
> Les Earnest > wrote:
>
> > If you would like to know what happened the last time we had really
> > stupid helmet rules, go to the Cyclops USA web site at
> >http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/, scroll down to September
> > 1989 and read "The brain bucket bash."
>
> Any requirement that a rider wear a helmet is already a brain-dead
> proposition.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Nope makes the insurance companies happier and improves your economics
as a racer. Other than that they work pretty well when you forget to
unclip and fall over sideways.
Bill C

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article . com>,
Bill C > wrote:

> On May 5, 2:53 am, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> >
> > Surely the purpose of the CEN allowance is to allow Euro racers (Tour de
> > California, Tour de Georgia, etc.) to come over here and race in their
> > sponsor's equipment.
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Cousineau /
> > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide quoted
> > text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> In this case you're probably right, and therefore it's justified, or
> at least reasonable.
> Bill C

I'm right! I'm right! I win the Usenet!

Woo hoo! Okay, you all saw it. For the rest of the month, no addressing
me as "dumbass."

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Donald Munro]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> I win the Usenet!

Can you drink it ?

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Donald Munro > wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > I win the Usenet!
>
> Can you drink it ?
>

I'll let you know soon.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[ST]

On 5/5/07 3:12 PM, in article
. com, "Bill C"
> wrote:

> On May 4, 7:54 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Les Earnest > wrote:
>>
>>> If you would like to know what happened the last time we had really
>>> stupid helmet rules, go to the Cyclops USA web site at
>>> http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/, scroll down to September
>>> 1989 and read "The brain bucket bash."
>>
>> Any requirement that a rider wear a helmet is already a brain-dead
>> proposition.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Press
>
> Nope makes the insurance companies happier and improves your economics
> as a racer. Other than that they work pretty well when you forget to
> unclip and fall over sideways.
> Bill C
>

forget to unclip and fall over sideways= Cat 5 = uninsurable.

[Les Earnest]

wrote:
> The CPSC's certification is for a 14 mph impact, dumbasses.

Since the usual impact involves a drop to the pavement, speed has
nothing to do with it unless you are planning to ride into a brick wall.
The CPSC standard provides good protection for a seated cyclist who
somehow falls.

-Les Earnest

[Bill C]

On May 6, 1:48 pm, ST > wrote:
> On 5/5/07 3:12 PM, in article
> . com, "Bill C"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 4, 7:54 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Les Earnest > wrote:
>
> >>> If you would like to know what happened the last time we had really
> >>> stupid helmet rules, go to the Cyclops USA web site at
> >>>http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/, scroll down to September
> >>> 1989 and read "The brain bucket bash."
>
> >> Any requirement that a rider wear a helmet is already a brain-dead
> >> proposition.
>
> >> --
> >> Michael Press
>
> > Nope makes the insurance companies happier and improves your economics
> > as a racer. Other than that they work pretty well when you forget to
> > unclip and fall over sideways.
> > Bill C
>
> forget to unclip and fall over sideways= Cat 5 = uninsurable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A certain Pro I know, who is back from Europe and racing in the US
again, would be happy to hear your opinion since he does it a couple
times a season. It's pretty well known.
Bill C

[Michael Press]

In article
. com>,
Bill C > wrote:

> On May 4, 7:54 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Les Earnest > wrote:
> >
> > > If you would like to know what happened the last time we had really
> > > stupid helmet rules, go to the Cyclops USA web site at
> > >http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/, scroll down to September
> > > 1989 and read "The brain bucket bash."
> >
> > Any requirement that a rider wear a helmet is already a brain-dead
> > proposition.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Press
>
> Nope makes the insurance companies happier and improves your economics
> as a racer. Other than that they work pretty well when you forget to
> unclip and fall over sideways.

Mandating helmets is just plain wrong. Who wants to make insurance
companies happy? Who says the insurance companies have evidence
that helmets reduce claims? I do not `forget' to unclip.

--
Michael Press

[Bill C]

On May 6, 3:54 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article
> . com>,
> Bill C > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 7:54 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Les Earnest > wrote:
>
> > > > If you would like to know what happened the last time we had really
> > > > stupid helmet rules, go to the Cyclops USA web site at
> > > >http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/, scroll down to September
> > > > 1989 and read "The brain bucket bash."
>
> > > Any requirement that a rider wear a helmet is already a brain-dead
> > > proposition.
>
> > > --
> > > Michael Press
>
> > Nope makes the insurance companies happier and improves your economics
> > as a racer. Other than that they work pretty well when you forget to
> > unclip and fall over sideways.
>
> Mandating helmets is just plain wrong. Who wants to make insurance
> companies happy? Who says the insurance companies have evidence
> that helmets reduce claims? I do not `forget' to unclip.
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

>From a philosophical standpoint I agree with you. From the practical,
since helmets have become an imaginary panacea, good luck getting
insurance at rates that'll let you run a race without them.
You wanna run without insurance then you had better hope that "God
protects drunks and fools".
Bill C

[[email protected]]

On May 6, 3:44 pm, Bill C > wrote:

> > > Nope makes the insurance companies happier and improves your economics
> > > as a racer. Other than that they work pretty well when you forget to
> > > unclip and fall over sideways.
> > > Bill C
>
> > forget to unclip and fall over sideways= Cat 5 = uninsurable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> A certain Pro I know, who is back from Europe and racing in the US
> again, would be happy to hear your opinion since he does it a couple
> times a season. It's pretty well known.

is it david zabriskie ?

[Bill C]

On May 6, 6:26 pm, " >
wrote:
> On May 6, 3:44 pm, Bill C > wrote:
>
> > > > Nope makes the insurance companies happier and improves your economics
> > > > as a racer. Other than that they work pretty well when you forget to
> > > > unclip and fall over sideways.
> > > > Bill C
>
> > > forget to unclip and fall over sideways= Cat 5 = uninsurable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > A certain Pro I know, who is back from Europe and racing in the US
> > again, would be happy to hear your opinion since he does it a couple
> > times a season. It's pretty well known.
>
> is it david zabriskie ?

Since it's no secret think 'Cross and TJ.. Tim's also one of the
nicest guys out there.
Bill C

[Les Earnest]

A dogged poster named Michael Press writes:
> Mandating helmets is just plain wrong. Who wants to make insurance
> companies happy? Who says the insurance companies have evidence
> that helmets reduce claims? I do not `forget' to unclip.

The idea is not to make insurance companies happy but to make riders
happy. Insurance rates (hence licensing and race surcharge fees) are
directly derived from medical payments history.

As far as I know the insurance companies have never examined their
claims experience to try to figure out what causes their big expenses,
but I did that in 1984 as a USCF Director. When I asked for the data I
was refused but I got it after threatening to sue them. What the data
showed was that all major medical bills (over $20,000) were the result
of head injuries, as I had suspected. I used that fact in my 1985
attempt at getting a strong helmet rule adopted, even though I had by
that time lost my seat on the board because of anti-helmet politics.

I believe that the strong helmet rule would not have passed then except
for the timely death of still another rider, who fell at the Encino
Velodrome a couple of weeks before the board meeting. Thus beginning
January 1, 1986, USCF became the first cycling organization in the world
to adopt a strong helmet rule. Subsequent drops in medical insurance
payments and a reduced death rate confirm that this was a good choice.

-Les Earnest

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Sun, 06 May 2007 04:59:22 GMT, Ryan Cousineau >
wrote:

>Woo hoo! Okay, you all saw it. For the rest of the month, no addressing
>me as "dumbass."

Its not an address, dumbass, its a relative pronoun. I have a lot of
relatives that are dumbasses. My wife says it runs in the family. ("It
practically gallops!")

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:31:39 +0000, Donald Munro
> wrote:

>Have you told your wife that her mother is a dumbass yet ?

I couldn't afford an ex-wife. Besides, she's a nurse and they know how
to hurt you.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Donald Munro]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Its not an address, dumbass, its a relative pronoun. I have a lot of
> relatives that are dumbasses. My wife says it runs in the family. ("It
> practically gallops!")

Have you told your wife that her mother is a dumbass yet ?

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Les Earnest > wrote:

> A dogged poster named Michael Press writes:
> > Mandating helmets is just plain wrong. Who wants to make insurance
> > companies happy? Who says the insurance companies have evidence
> > that helmets reduce claims? I do not `forget' to unclip.
>
> The idea is not to make insurance companies happy but to make riders
> happy.

Look at the previous posting, dog sniffer.
I did not bring happiness of insurance companies into it.

> Insurance rates (hence licensing and race surcharge fees) are
> directly derived from medical payments history.
>
> As far as I know the insurance companies have never examined their
> claims experience to try to figure out what causes their big expenses,
> but I did that in 1984 as a USCF Director. When I asked for the data I
> was refused but I got it after threatening to sue them. What the data
> showed was that all major medical bills (over $20,000) were the result
> of head injuries, as I had suspected. I used that fact in my 1985
> attempt at getting a strong helmet rule adopted, even though I had by
> that time lost my seat on the board because of anti-helmet politics.
>
> I believe that the strong helmet rule would not have passed then except
> for the timely death of still another rider, who fell at the Encino
> Velodrome a couple of weeks before the board meeting. Thus beginning
> January 1, 1986, USCF became the first cycling organization in the world
> to adopt a strong helmet rule. Subsequent drops in medical insurance
> payments and a reduced death rate confirm that this was a good choice.

Correlation is not proof of causation. An equally good hypothesis
is that you drove the risk takers out of cycling.

<URL:http://www.firsttracksonline.com/news/stories/114222599996019.
shtm>

Wilmington, NY (Sunday, March 12, 2006) - Swedish snowboarder
Jonatan Johansson died Sunday as a result of injuries suffered
from a fall in training for an International Ski Federation (FIS)
World Cup snowboardcross (SBX) competition at Whiteface Mountain
ski area, authorities said. The FIS competition jury canceled the
event.

He was wearing a helmet, as mandated by FIS rules. Doctors and
paramedics were with him immediately and

Details of the crash were not immediately available, but officials
said he landed within the course boundaries and was wearing a
helmet.

An autopsy was performed at the AMC in Saranac Lake, 10 miles from
Lake Placid, by Dr. C. Francis Varga. The cause of death was
determined to be multiple internal injuries. Essex County Coroner
Walter S. Marvin ruled the manner of death "accidental."

--
Michael Press

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Curtis L. Russell > wrote:

> On Sun, 06 May 2007 04:59:22 GMT, Ryan Cousineau >
> wrote:
>
> >Woo hoo! Okay, you all saw it. For the rest of the month, no addressing
> >me as "dumbass."
>
> Its not an address, dumbass, its a relative pronoun. I have a lot of
> relatives that are dumbasses. My wife says it runs in the family. ("It
> practically gallops!")

Sic transit gloria mundi. I must remember: We Are All Dumbasses. "WAAD".

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Curtis L. Russell > wrote:

> On Mon, 07 May 2007 09:51:50 -0700, Michael Press >
> wrote:
>
> >Correlation is not proof of causation. An equally good hypothesis
> >is that you drove the risk takers out of cycling.
>
> I've changed my mind. Correlation IS good enough to hang someone. If
> you aren't hanging a guilty party, you have a high probability of
> hanging someone that knows the guilty party. You may never hang the
> guilty one, but you WILL leave him without friends. Eventually.

The Millar Line is vindicated!

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[[email protected]]

On May 6, 11:50 am, Les Earnest > wrote:
>
> The CPSC standard provides good protection for a seated cyclist who
> somehow falls.

Crap. When LIVEDRUNK's insurance carrier finds out about
this, every cyclist in rbr will have to wear helmets while seated
on bar stools.

Ben

[William Asher]

" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On May 6, 11:50 am, Les Earnest > wrote:
>>
>> The CPSC standard provides good protection for a seated cyclist who
>> somehow falls.
>
> Crap. When LIVEDRUNK's insurance carrier finds out about
> this, every cyclist in rbr will have to wear helmets while seated
> on bar stools.

That would be as much to keep them from picking up chicks and possibly
breeding as it would be to keep them safe.

There was this ship's captain I knew who always drank standing up at the
bar. When he fell down, it was time to go home. In modern maritime
terminology this drinking technique is now called hazelwooding.

--
Bill Asher

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On 8 May 2007 06:07:01 GMT, William Asher wrote:
> There was this ship's captain I knew who always drank standing up at the
> bar. When he fell down, it was time to go home. In modern maritime
> terminology this drinking technique is now called hazelwooding.

Ah thanks for letting me google and find out.
(Hazelwood was the captain of the Exxon Valdez.)

--
E. Dronkert

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> On May 6, 11:50 am, Les Earnest > wrote:
> >
> > The CPSC standard provides good protection for a seated cyclist who
> > somehow falls.
>
> Crap. When LIVEDRUNK's insurance carrier finds out about
> this, every cyclist in rbr will have to wear helmets while seated
> on bar stools.
>
> Ben

LIVEDRUNKers do it in the saddle, and are all about the unfunded
liabilities.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
>> Crap. When LIVEDRUNK's insurance carrier finds out about
>> this, every cyclist in rbr will have to wear helmets while seated
>> on bar stools.

William Asher wrote:
> That would be as much to keep them from picking up chicks and possibly
> breeding as it would be to keep them safe.

The insurance companies even care about the chicks. Just ask the people
from New Orleans.

[William Asher]

Donald Munro wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> That would be as much to keep them from picking up chicks and possibly
>> breeding as it would be to keep them safe.
>
> The insurance companies even care about the chicks. Just ask the people
> from New Orleans.

New Orleans is so 2005. The only people there are Brad Pitt and Angelina
Jolie.

--
Bill Asher

[[email protected]]

On May 7, 11:07 pm, William Asher > wrote:
> " > wrote
>
> > Crap. When LIVEDRUNK's insurance carrier finds out about
> > this, every cyclist in rbr will have to wear helmets while seated
> > on bar stools.
>
> That would be as much to keep them from picking up chicks and possibly
> breeding as it would be to keep them safe.

Dumbass,

You need to meet some women with more sense. All the ones
I know are smart enough to avoid rbr cyclists without needing
the bar-helmet cue. In fact I don't know where you did find any
that don't have that sense, but for god's sake don't post the name
of the bar or we'll all be there ruining the place.

Ben

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> On May 7, 11:07 pm, William Asher > wrote:
> > " > wrote
> >
> > > Crap. When LIVEDRUNK's insurance carrier finds out about
> > > this, every cyclist in rbr will have to wear helmets while seated
> > > on bar stools.
> >
> > That would be as much to keep them from picking up chicks and possibly
> > breeding as it would be to keep them safe.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> You need to meet some women with more sense. All the ones
> I know are smart enough to avoid rbr cyclists without needing
> the bar-helmet cue. In fact I don't know where you did find any
> that don't have that sense, but for god's sake don't post the name
> of the bar or we'll all be there ruining the place.

Dude, when I found her, I married her.

Though the big surprise was when I took up cycling a year after we got
married,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos