Frank "Temperance" Krygowski declares open season for motorists oncyclists who take a drink

Andre Jute wrote:
****
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
****

Frank Krygowski wrote:
[snip to get to Krygowski's beef with the world]
More specifically, whom do you observe more frequently riding facing
traffic - helmet wearers or those without helmets? *Who do you suppose
are more often biking drunk? *Who more often rides at night without
lights? *Who more often ignores stop signs?

So what do you want to do, Krygowski, declare open season on drunks on
bikes? Give motorists credit points against their speeding offences
for running over a drunken cyclist, more points for killing him than
merely injuring him?

You're confusing three of your fixations, Frankie-boy, Vehicular
Cycling, which I'll investigate later, Anti-Helmet Zealotry, and a
fascist obsession with being seen to be hairsplittingly law-abiding,
and thereby compounding the errors in each and confounding yourself.
In particular, you're getting an important sequence arse-about-end:

DRUNK CYCLISTS ALSO DIE. THE NEW YORK STUDY SUGGESTS THAT FEWER OF
THEM WOULD DIE IF THEY WORE HELMETS.

THEREFORE DRUNK CYCLISTS ARE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR MANDATORY HELMET
WEAR.

And do you think that slapping a helmet on a wrong-way, no-lights,
stop-sign-running drunk cyclist will change him into a careful law-
abider?

That's what law enforcement is good for, sonny. Aren't American police
under political control then? (Or do you know as little about the
civic affairs of your mother country as you do about civic affairs in
Western Australia, as I demonstrated a couple of days ago when you
lied about what the Western Australia study shows?)

[snip to remove another statistical idiocy from guess who:]
- Frank Krygowski

It's bizarre that this fellow Krygoswki cannot see the logical
absurdity of his arguments against wearing a bicycle helmet.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

But do more professional cyclists crash when doped and wearing helmets than
not doped and not wearing helmets?

We need data on the following injury & death rates-

-Doped cyclists wearing helmets
-Clean cyclists wearing helmets
-Doped cyclists sans helmets
-Clean cyclists sans helmets
-Brain injuries not yet revealed but in evidence for various rbr poster
wearing helmets
-Brain injuries not yet revealed but in evidence for various rbr posters
sans helmets
-Effect of wearing foil-lined helmet in weeding out off-topic rbr posts
-Screen refresh rate
-Belief that $100 interconnect cables for digital signals makes a difference

Kolldata=control sample

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA



"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:
****
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
****

Frank Krygowski wrote:
[snip to get to Krygowski's beef with the world]
More specifically, whom do you observe more frequently riding facing
traffic - helmet wearers or those without helmets? Who do you suppose
are more often biking drunk? Who more often rides at night without
lights? Who more often ignores stop signs?

So what do you want to do, Krygowski, declare open season on drunks on
bikes? Give motorists credit points against their speeding offences
for running over a drunken cyclist, more points for killing him than
merely injuring him?

You're confusing three of your fixations, Frankie-boy, Vehicular
Cycling, which I'll investigate later, Anti-Helmet Zealotry, and a
fascist obsession with being seen to be hairsplittingly law-abiding,
and thereby compounding the errors in each and confounding yourself.
In particular, you're getting an important sequence arse-about-end:

DRUNK CYCLISTS ALSO DIE. THE NEW YORK STUDY SUGGESTS THAT FEWER OF
THEM WOULD DIE IF THEY WORE HELMETS.

THEREFORE DRUNK CYCLISTS ARE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR MANDATORY HELMET
WEAR.

And do you think that slapping a helmet on a wrong-way, no-lights,
stop-sign-running drunk cyclist will change him into a careful law-
abider?

That's what law enforcement is good for, sonny. Aren't American police
under political control then? (Or do you know as little about the
civic affairs of your mother country as you do about civic affairs in
Western Australia, as I demonstrated a couple of days ago when you
lied about what the Western Australia study shows?)

[snip to remove another statistical idiocy from guess who:]
- Frank Krygowski

It's bizarre that this fellow Krygoswki cannot see the logical
absurdity of his arguments against wearing a bicycle helmet.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

Andre Jute wrote:
THEREFORE DRUNK CYCLISTS ARE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR MANDATORY HELMET
WEAR.

Whatever else passes here, don't sign me up for THAT.

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

But do more professional cyclists crash when doped and wearing helmets than
not doped and not wearing helmets?

We need data on the following injury & death rates-

-Doped cyclists wearing helmets
-Clean cyclists wearing helmets
-Doped cyclists sans helmets
-Clean cyclists sans helmets
-Brain injuries not yet revealed but in evidence for various rbr poster
wearing helmets
-Brain injuries not yet revealed but in evidence for various rbr posters
sans helmets
-Effect of wearing foil-lined helmet in weeding out off-topic rbr posts
-Screen refresh rate
-Belief that $100 interconnect cables for digital signals makes a difference

Kolldata=control sample

That sums up the missing data well...

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

On Aug 23, 10:11*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
But do more professional cyclists crash when doped and wearing helmets than
not doped and not wearing helmets?

We need data on the following injury & death rates-

-Doped cyclists wearing helmets
-Clean cyclists wearing helmets
-Doped cyclists sans helmets
-Clean cyclists sans helmets
-Brain injuries not yet revealed but in evidence for various rbr poster
wearing helmets
-Brain injuries not yet revealed but in evidence for various rbr posters
sans helmets
-Effect of wearing foil-lined helmet in weeding out off-topic rbr posts
-Screen refresh rate
-Belief that $100 interconnect cables for digital signals makes a difference

You had me in the palm of your hand, Mike, right until you got he

Kolldata=control sample

Then I knew your so-called "study" was fixed in advance. If I were to
try holding up Gene Daniels as the apex of the bell curve, I can think
before I blink again of six, no seven, professional bodies that will
withdraw my membership before I blink a third time.

BTW, hundred buck interconnects are made of mud. Nothing less than the
Real McCoy Triplex Single-Ended Guaranteed Shield (about three and a
half grand for the basic version, more you insists only my own hands
are good enough to make your cables, much more if you want the
monstrous billet tellurium connectors; that's each, not per pair)
works like the Real McCoy etc. They're so popular, I have to listen on
plain Cardas 5TC myself.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

BBTW You forgot the really significant question:
• Will a top propeller on your helmet protect you against cagers, or
should it be at the back of your helmet to work effectively?

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

"Andre Jute" wrote in message

Jute wrote:

****
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
****

Frank Krygowski wrote:

[snip to get to Krygowski's beef with the world]

More specifically, whom do you observe more frequently riding facing
traffic - helmet wearers or those without helmets? Who do you suppose
are more often biking drunk? Who more often rides at night without
lights? Who more often ignores stop signs?

So what do you want to do, Krygowski, declare open season on drunks on
bikes? Give motorists credit points against their speeding offences
for running over a drunken cyclist, more points for killing him than
merely injuring him?

You're confusing three of your fixations, Frankie-boy, Vehicular
Cycling, which I'll investigate later, Anti-Helmet Zealotry, and a
fascist obsession with being seen to be hairsplittingly law-abiding,
and thereby compounding the errors in each and confounding yourself.
In particular, you're getting an important sequence arse-about-end:

DRUNK CYCLISTS ALSO DIE. THE NEW YORK STUDY SUGGESTS THAT FEWER OF
THEM WOULD DIE IF THEY WORE HELMETS.

THEREFORE DRUNK CYCLISTS ARE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR MANDATORY HELMET
WEAR.

And do you think that slapping a helmet on a wrong-way, no-lights,
stop-sign-running drunk cyclist will change him into a careful law-
abider?

That's what law enforcement is good for, sonny. Aren't American police
under political control then? (Or do you know as little about the
civic affairs of your mother country as you do about civic affairs in
Western Australia, as I demonstrated a couple of days ago when you
lied about what the Western Australia study shows?)

[snip to remove another statistical idiocy from guess who:]

- Frank Krygowski

It's bizarre that this fellow Krygoswki cannot see the logical
absurdity of his arguments against wearing a bicycle helmet.

Andre Jute
*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

On Aug 23, 10:22*pm, "MikeWhy" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
THEREFORE DRUNK CYCLISTS ARE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR MANDATORY HELMET
WEAR.

Whatever else passes here, don't sign me up for THAT.

Why, Mike, are you confessing that your despair at failing to knock
some sense into Krygo has turned you to drink?

Andre Jute
Just asking

****

Andre Jute wrote:

****
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf
This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
****
Frank Krygowski wrote:

[snip to get to Krygowski's beef with the world]
More specifically, whom do you observe more frequently riding facing
traffic - helmet wearers or those without helmets? Who do you suppose
are more often biking drunk? Who more often rides at night without
lights? Who more often ignores stop signs?

So what do you want to do, Krygowski, declare open season on drunks
on
bikes? Give motorists credit points against their speeding offences
for running over a drunken cyclist, more points for killing him than
merely injuring him?
You're confusing three of your fixations, Frankie-boy, Vehicular
Cycling, which I'll investigate later, Anti-Helmet Zealotry, and a
fascist obsession with being seen to be hairsplittingly law-abiding,
and thereby compounding the errors in each and confounding yourself.
In particular, you're getting an important sequence arse-about-end:
DRUNK CYCLISTS ALSO DIE. THE NEW YORK STUDY SUGGESTS THAT FEWER OF
THEM WOULD DIE IF THEY WORE HELMETS.
THEREFORE DRUNK CYCLISTS ARE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR MANDATORY HELMET
WEAR.
And do you think that slapping a helmet on a wrong-way, no-lights,
stop-sign-running drunk cyclist will change him into a careful law-
abider?

That's what law enforcement is good for, sonny. Aren't American
police
under political control then? (Or do you know as little about the
civic affairs of your mother country as you do about civic affairs in
Western Australia, as I demonstrated a couple of days ago when you
lied about what the Western Australia study shows?)
[snip to remove another statistical idiocy from guess who:]
- Frank Krygowski

It's bizarre that this fellow Krygoswki cannot see the logical
absurdity of his arguments against wearing a bicycle helmet.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

On 8/23/10 4:22 PM, MikeWhy wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
THEREFORE DRUNK CYCLISTS ARE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR MANDATORY HELMET
WEAR.

Whatever else passes here, don't sign me up for THAT.

I would support that if the helmets came with two beer holders on the
sides with a siphon along the chinstrap.

On Aug 23, 9:34*pm, Kevan Smith wrote:
On 8/23/10 4:22 PM, MikeWhy wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
THEREFORE DRUNK CYCLISTS ARE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR MANDATORY HELMET
WEAR.

Whatever else passes here, don't sign me up for THAT.

I would support that if the helmets came with two beer holders on the
sides with a siphon along the chinstrap.

the beer holders would need to got in the back for aero purposes, bro

On Aug 23, 9:46*pm, bar wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:34*pm, Kevan Smith wrote:

On 8/23/10 4:22 PM, MikeWhy wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
THEREFORE DRUNK CYCLISTS ARE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR MANDATORY HELMET
WEAR.

Whatever else passes here, don't sign me up for THAT.

I would support that if the helmets came with two beer holders on the
sides with a siphon along the chinstrap.

the beer holders would need to got in the back for aero purposes, bro

pls ignore the extraneous "t"

Kevan Smith wrote:
I would support that if the helmets came with two beer holders on the
sides with a siphon along the chinstrap.

Dumbass,
Use a camelbak.