Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

Kris Baker wrote:
"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 18, 3:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:

Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?

Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.

And getting rid of mandatory helmet laws will promote more organ
donation. Toss in the Darwinian aspect and you've got: Win-win!


Bo Raxo

A motorcycle helmet saved my life in 1974. I flew off the back at 70mph
and scraped so far along the road, that my face shield had holes worn
through it. I didn't know it, but I was pregnant at the time.

My husband came off, landed on his head, and also slid as far. He had leg
injuries, I lost a lot of skin and experienced some fun "road rash".

Since that time, I've known four people who got in motorcycle wrecks. ONE
was wearing a helmet, and survived. The other three, did not.

What the effectiveness of a MOTORCYCLE helmet that has a hard shell
consisting of several layers of fiber-reinforced polymer composite over
a thick, continuous foam liner has to do with a highly ventilated foam
bicycle hat that weighs a fraction of what the motorcycle helmet does is
beyond me.

BUT I have the solution for these idiots:

PLEASE POST A CITATION OF A REPUTABLE STUDY THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT
BICYCLE (NOT MOTORCYCLE) HELMETS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE PERMANENT HEAD
INJURIES AND DEATHS AMONG BICYCLISTS.

Let's change the laws so that if you are in a motorcycle wreck, are not
wearing a helmet and have head injuries, WE (the public) do not have to pay
for your medical care. If your family wants to keep you alive, then they
can come up with the money to keep your brain-dead ass alive for 30 years.
Or a week.

What do motorcycle wrecks have to do with bicyclists?

It was your "right" to make your choice and not wear a helmet. It's our
"right" to not have to pay for your choice. Darwin, indeed.

Again, where are the REPUTABLE studies showing that BICYCLE helmets are
effective? In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists and
the reduction in overall bicycle use lead to a higher rate of motor
vehicle/bicycle collisions.

“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists

Say What?!!

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:47:47 -0700, cager scum, Klu Klux Klaners for
the GOP felt safe enough to spew:
\

You guys ride 2 a piece in the bike lane, cars should give you 5 feet!!!
20-40 of you take up the whole car lane, I will have no sympathy when
some psycho loses it and mows you all down!! Cyclists are inconsiderate
assholes!!!!!!!!!!

And caged scud monkeys are filthy, stinking, noisey, petulant brats
intolerant of _anything_ in their way of attaining maximum speed.

You chicken**** thugs just wouldn't dare attack a backhoe with your
widdle cars is all.

Give your stinking car back to the bank.
You're obviously too immature to be trusted with it on the roads.
--
zk

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists

Say What?!!

Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to both
helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.

The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be speculated
that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are seen as more
responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into traffic. An
alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as provided
bicyclists with some unreasonably high degree of protection, so the
motorist need not exercise the same degree of care while passing.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Paul Johnson wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:18 am, Bill Shatzer wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

Paul Berg wrote:
...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?
They seem effective in reducing serious head injuries by up to 85%.
Which is why some states and provinces, like British Columbia,
consider helmets a mandatory item for all cyclists regardless of age.
Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those
who have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?

Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.


More like helping morons live to propogate.

Please provide a citation to a REPUTABLE study that demonstrates that
BICYCLE helmets are effective in reducing severe head injuries.

Running cyclists down with a truck is anti-cyclist.

Mandatory helmet laws promote the image that riding a bicycle is
dangerous (no so, compared to many other ordinary activities) and
discourage bicycle use. Therefore, these laws are anti-bicyclist.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Lobby Dosser wrote:
fred wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Paul Berg wrote:
...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?

And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the
injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the helmet
thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs and no head
injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be irrelevant. By not
mentioning the type of injuries, they imply that they were head
injuries and that helmets might have made a difference.


Nope. They're just letting the public know that they are a couple of
morons.

I see that "Lobby Dosser" has uncritically accepted the bicycle helmet
propaganda designed primarily to drive the sales of foam bicycle hats.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists

Say What?!!

Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to both
helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.

The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be
speculated that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are seen
as more responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into
traffic. An alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as
provided bicyclists with some unreasonably high degree of protection,
so the motorist need not exercise the same degree of care while
passing.


You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?

On Aug 18, 4:49 pm, Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
wrote:
In article . com,
Paul Johnson wrote:



It's not like cyclists have effective horns to warn drifting drivers.
The motorist was entirely a jackass. I don't see what the problem is.

I am not being serious here, just devils advocate, but havent you seen
childrens bikes with horns? They are preety loud!

Not loud enough to be heard over traffic. compare a kiddie bike horn
to a carhorn and tell me which one is louder. Heck, even a lot of
carhorns are ineffective at the audible warning job.

On Aug 18, 4:47 pm, Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
wrote:
In article .com,
"Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"

wrote:
Who the hell was stupid and kicked his truck and WHY?

Somebody apparently did something stupid to cause something a lot more
stupid. That was jackass and entirely preventable.

No real sympathy for any kickers.

You know what I have no real sympathy for?? When 20 cyclists decide to
ride on a major street and take up the whole lane at say 15 mph when the
speed limit is 35 mph. Selfish mother****ers!!!!!!!

Bikes are required by law to take the lane if there's no extra room in
the lane to allow for safe passing.

You guys ride 2 a piece in the bike lane, cars should give you 5 feet!!!
20-40 of you take up the whole car lane, I will have no sympathy when
some psycho loses it and mows you all down!! Cyclists are inconsiderate
assholes!!!!!!!!!!

You shouldn't have a driver's license. You obviously don't know what
you're doing.

On Aug 18, 3:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:18 am, Bill Shatzer wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

Paul Berg wrote:
...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy Mastne,
were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not life-threatening.
Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat provides
little more than bump and scrape protection?
They seem effective in reducing serious head injuries by up to 85%.

Which is why some states and provinces, like British Columbia,
consider helmets a mandatory item for all cyclists regardless of age.

Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?

No, because it saves Health Canada a ****load of money in head traumas
every year.

Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.

Wow. You're an idiot at any speed.