Extended stems

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:00:11 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

That helmet saved my wife's life.

Ah yes. There are countless "the helmet saved my life" stories.

So... do you mind terribly if I wear one? I'd appreciate it.

Jones

If you value your head as much as *I* value your head, then don't
bother to wear a helmet. I don't bother to insure my car, so what's
it to me?

Jones

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:02:36 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote:

And (glory hallelujah) I'm converted. *Everyone else is going to hell.

You had to wait until you were sixty to discover that? I knew it
before I knew anything else, but then I was born a Calvinist, with my
place in Heaven reserved on conception.

Well, any nitwit knows properly helmets are effective.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:13:40 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:20:43 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you
spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under
some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers.

You address that question, then we'll consider yours.

Nice dodge attempt.

No, I put a lot of thought and effort into my writing. I have seen
*that* lame scam run all over Usenet... the person spews forth a long
string of brainless questions, then stridently demands answers to all
of them. If I attempt to answer them, all that will follow are more
brainless questions.


Not brainless. RIght on target. Questions about something that
easily can be used to support or cut down your statement.

Let's summarize:

1. You say that if a cyclist is hit and not wearing a helmet they are
more liable for their injury.

2. I ask if that is true for someone walking or travelling in a car
who is in an accident, gets a head injury and is not wearing a helmet.

3. You refuse to answer that question.

4. I laugh.


It is my position that we (meaning: in the US) tend not to accept
responsibility for our own actions. If I smoke and the result is poor
health (and it has never been proven that I have contributed in any
way to that), then I want the tobacco companies to compensate me. It
can be argued that, even though no experimental studies exist that
prove smoking causes health problems, common sense would say that I
knowingly contributed to my own issues.

That would be my analogy... and quite a bit better than your shrieking
about guns and bullet-proof vests, etc, IMO. I'm not going to try to
make you wear a helmet; however, I reserve "I told you so" rights, OK?

Funny, again you point to only one example of mine and not the other,
most closely analogous ones: does a pedestrian or passenger in a car
who gets a head injury have higher liability if he/she was not wearing
a helmet?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:22:44 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Are you claiming you did _not_ say, "I would not compel you to wear a
helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not
to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's
your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event"?

Yes, I said that. I would *never* force you to wear a helmet, however
I think it is negligent on your part not to. OTOH, it's a free
country.

So if a car hits you when you're out walking and your head is injured,
can we say you were negligent to not wear helmet?

It's a simple and pertinent question.

I look forward to your attempt to evade this question.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:15:16 -0500, !Jones wrote:

If you value your head as much as *I* value your head, then don't
bother to wear a helmet. I don't bother to insure my car, so what's
it to me?

How much do your value your own head? $79, spent at Nashbar?

On Jul 14, 5:17*pm, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:13:40 -0500, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:20:43 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

Excuse me, sir. *Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you
spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under
some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers.

You address that question, then we'll consider yours.

Nice dodge attempt.

No, I put a lot of thought and effort into my writing. *I have seen
*that* lame scam run all over Usenet... the person spews forth a long
string of brainless questions, then stridently demands answers to all
of them. *If I attempt to answer them, all that will follow are more
brainless questions.

Not brainless. *RIght on target. *Questions about something that
easily can be used to support or cut down your statement.

Let's summarize:

1. You say that if a cyclist is hit and not wearing a helmet they are
more liable for their injury.

2. I ask if that is true for someone walking or travelling in a car
who is in an accident, gets a head injury and is not wearing a helmet.

3. You refuse to answer that question.

4. I laugh.

It is my position that we (meaning: in the US) tend not to accept
responsibility for our own actions. *If I smoke and the result is poor
health (and it has never been proven that I have contributed in any
way to that), then I want the tobacco companies to compensate me. *It
can be argued that, even though no experimental studies exist that
prove smoking causes health problems, common sense would say that I
knowingly contributed to my own issues.
That would be my analogy... and quite a bit better than your shrieking
about guns and bullet-proof vests, etc, IMO. *I'm not going to try to
make you wear a helmet; however, I reserve "I told you so" rights, OK?

Funny, again you point to only one example of mine and not the other,
most closely analogous ones: does a pedestrian or passenger in a car
who gets a head injury have higher liability if he/she was not wearing
a helmet?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is conceptually possible that a pedestrian who is hit by a car
could be found comparatively at fault in failing to wear a helmet.
The defense would be subject to summary judgment absent evidence that
a theoretically "reasonable person" would have worn a helmet in the
same or similar circumstances. That's where the defense would fail.

With bicyclists, there are plent of theoretically "reasonable persons"
who wear helmets, and thus the defense probably would make it to the
jury. This is bad public policy and tends to exonerate negligent
drivers, so in some states (Oregon for example) there are statutes
prohibiting the admission of evidence that a bicycle rider was not
wearing a helmet for purposes of proving comparative fault. There is
a somewhat similar statute for seatbelts that allows a maximum 5%
reduction for not wearing a seatbelt.

Also note that some states have defined comparative fault as the fault
of the plaintiff that contributes to the accident (viz., the
collision) versus the alleged injuries. In those states, the failure
to wear a helmet does not amount to comparative fault, but it may
amount to a failure to "mitigate damages" -- or it may amount to
neither. Comparative fault has developed differently around the
United States, particularly as the doctrine applies to safety
equipment and mainly seatbelts. If you have any kind of MHL in New
York, the statue probably has a provision making it impermissible to
offer evidence of the failure to wear a helmet in a civil personal
injury case. That's the usual quid pro quo with those statutes. -- Jay
Beattie.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:19:21 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:22:44 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Are you claiming you did _not_ say, "I would not compel you to wear a
helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not
to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's
your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event"?

Yes, I said that. I would *never* force you to wear a helmet, however
I think it is negligent on your part not to. OTOH, it's a free
country.

So if a car hits you when you're out walking and your head is injured,
can we say you were negligent to not wear helmet?

It's a simple and pertinent question.

I look forward to your attempt to evade this question.

Actually, I'm simply going to ignore it.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:01:16 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:19:21 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:22:44 -0500, !Jones wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Are you claiming you did _not_ say, "I would not compel you to wear a
helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not
to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's
your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event"?

Yes, I said that. I would *never* force you to wear a helmet, however
I think it is negligent on your part not to. OTOH, it's a free
country.

So if a car hits you when you're out walking and your head is injured,
can we say you were negligent to not wear helmet?

It's a simple and pertinent question.

I look forward to your attempt to evade this question.

Actually, I'm simply going to ignore it.

That pretty much sums up your argument -- it can't stand up to a
simple and closely related analogy.

Weak your thinking is.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:17:34 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

Funny, again you point to only one example of mine and not the other,
most closely analogous ones: does a pedestrian or passenger in a car
who gets a head injury have higher liability if he/she was not wearing
a helmet?

You can make a good case for wearing helmets in cars, I suppose.
Since you object to wearing one on a bicycle, I doubt you'd approve.
It'll never happen... you'd mess up women's hair.