Bicycle helmet law can save lives

remove the polite word to reply wrote:

-snip-
This is an important subject
-snip-

LOL!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"Bran" writes:

Zog The Undeniable spake thusly on or about
Sun, 2 May 2004 07:09:41 UTC

- As we British would say, "********!" A similar law was proposed
- in the UK, but failed last week. The problem is that bike use
- declines massively as soon as a law is brought in. It takes
- years to recover, if it ever does.
-

get them off the damned bikes and they will not be killed or hurt
their heads. proof that helmet laws save lives and reduce head
injuries.

Precisely the opposite happened in Australia, IIRC. Mandatory helmet
law, fewer cyclists, increased rate of head injuries among cyclists.
Not to mention the negative health repercussions of people getting
less exercise.

It was nice to see Pennsylvania remove the helmet law for motorcycles. I
think people should just be free to make their own minds up on this.

curt

"remove the polite word to reply" wrote in
message om...
Is this a case of "When you don't have facts, cry "troll"? An ad hominem
attack?

This is an important subject, if you don't want to discuss it, you don't
have to.

Is this a case of "When you don't have facts, cry "troll"?

"Cry troll! and let slip the dogs of war."
(apologies to William Shakespeare)

I am a firm believer in everybody wearing helmets. Probably because I have
been in two crashes where my helmets were destroyed due to impact with the
ground.

But I think the guys that pass these laws could save a lot more lives if
they passed a mandatory safety class requirement. Observing a few basic
safety rules would probably save a lot of people.


"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Garrison Hilliard writes:


Bicycle helmet law can save lives.


Troll! Ged-outta-heah! Was you born yestiddy?

Garrison was quoting a newspaper editorial about a mandatory helmet law.
That's not a troll, in my book, any more than someone quoting a
Bicycling magazine article on chain stretch or on frames going soft - to
pick a couple topics Jobst would jump on.

The idea that we should not discuss mandatory helmets in this group is
foolish. It's more pertinent than global warming, the conquest of Iraq,
gun control, and many other recurring themes.

And while many have heard it all before, these groups are regularly
visited by newbies who are learning from the beginning. Unlike the
above topics, this is one of the few places a person can get both sides
of the story.

Ignoring mandatory helmet laws is putting your styrofoam-covered head in
the sand. If nobody presents the actual data, legislators and even
cyclists will continue to believe the "85% reduction in head injuries"
lie, and our rights to ride will continue to be restricted.

--
-------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

A Muzi wrote in message ...
remove the polite word to reply wrote:

-snip-
This is an important subject
-snip-

LOL!

Dear Pie-Man,

You're skipping the hardest part of
being a cop--bike safety lectures.

No one ever wants to hear about the
importance of pants clips, do they?

Chief Wiggums

On 02 May 2004 14:28:39 -0400, Christopher Brian Colohan
wrote:

Yow! My helmet has helped me exactly once -- when a drunk college kid
randomly decided to throw a bottle at my head as I rode by him one
evening. It just bounced off my helmet and did no harm at all..

They must do better road maintenance in your area. My helmet is
excellant for keeping the Charlie W. helmet mirror in place and to
block low hanging branches. The latter is a great help in riding in
Anne Arundel County, MD (USA) most of the year.

I'd consider trading the helmet for a mandatory maintenance law.

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

Pete wrote:

So why is it, that in places where helmet use has been more universally
required and regulated (Oz, NZ), that hasn't been shown to be the case?

Because governments and their laws cannot create
common sense, morality, or stop criminals from
doing anything?

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

David Kerber wrote:

In article ,
says...

This is an important subject, if you don't want to discuss it, you don't have to.


It has been discussed completely to death over the last year.

If you feel that way, you should have ignored the thread. The subject
heading is very clear.

It takes a strange person to walk into a room and say "You should only
discuss what I'm interested in!"



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

In article , says...
David Kerber wrote:

In article ,
says...

This is an important subject, if you don't want to discuss it, you don't have to.


It has been discussed completely to death over the last year.

If you feel that way, you should have ignored the thread. The subject
heading is very clear.

It takes a strange person to walk into a room and say "You should only
discuss what I'm interested in!"

Well, I've been told repeatedly that I _am_ a strange person GGG. I
understand your point, though.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).