Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:19:23 -0700, Bill Shatzer
wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

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%.

http://tinyurl.com/yqk6xl

Thompson, Rivara, Thompson has been discredited for a long time,

You've certainly not done so.

unless
one believes that bicycle h*lm*ts reduce 85% of NON-HEAD injuries also.

Heh!

"Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case
patients were 235 persons with HEAD INJURIES received while bicycling,
who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals." (emphasis added)

They were studying -only- head injuries and I can't find that their
study considered other types of injuries at all.

Sheesh!

Peace and justice

Ignorance and bliss

"The granddaddy of all helmet studies, referenced above, was produced
in 1989 by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson. Their report, with its
puzzling conclusion that helmets are more effective against brain
injury than cuts and bruises, launched the laws in Australia and New
Zealand which started the whole compulsion bandwagon rolling. Later
re-analysis of the raw data showed some anomalies: although they
claimed that they had controlled for differences between their "case"
group of mainly solo urban poor road cyclists and their "control"
group of predominantly white middle-class families riding on off-road
trails, Dorothy Robinson, a statistician from Australia, showed from
their data that you could equally show that helmets had prevented 75%
of broken legs. The authors have since published revised, lower
estimates, but the 85% and 88% figures you see quoted everywhere are
from the original 1989 study. Anyone using those figures should know
better!"

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Helmets
--
zk

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

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.


A good friend had his life saved by one of the foam hats. As long as you
pay your own medical care for head injuries, I don't really care what You
do.

Did your good friend's identical twin have an identical accident, except
for not wearing a foam hat and die as the result? If not, how can you
state that your friend would have died without his foam hat?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

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

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

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.

A good friend had his life saved by one of the foam hats. As long as
you pay your own medical care for head injuries, I don't really care
what You do.

Here we go...

Yep, anecdotal "evidence" with no control.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

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

Bo Raxo wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:
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!
Please post some citations showing that a thin web of expanded
polystyrene will significantly reduce serious brain trauma in accidents.


http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...ke_helmet.html
"Anneliese Spinks, a research fellow in the Griffith University School
of Medicine in Queensland, Australia, said most studies have found
that helmet laws reduce injuries, but that not all studies have been
considered statistically reliable."

Most helmet studies have been designed to find this result, regardless
of reality.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/886041.html
"According to Beterem and the road safety organization Or Yarok,
hospitalization due to cycling accidents in New York, New Jersey,
Canada, Seatle and California were down by dozens of percentage points
- especially among children - after helmet laws were passed. "

As was overall cycling activity, no doubt.

http://www.helmets.org/rodgers1.htm
"While recent studies show substantial safety benefits from helmet
use, they also reveal that only a small proportion of riders actually
use helmets. "

I could come up with a dozen more, but you get the idea.

Time and time again, these studies have been shown to have a flawed
experimental design. Why have we not seen any positive effect in places
like Australia with the introduction of MHLs?

Or to you believe that foam bicycle hats have magical powers that
protect the wearer's head?


I believe that nothing will protect you from all head injuries, but a
hard shell that absorbs some impact will reduce head injuries. It's
rather obvious.

Butbutbut, bicycle foam hats sold in the last couple of decades do NOT
have hard shells.

Try this: put a motorcycle helmet on a table and strike it hard with
your hand. Now try it again with a contemporary bicycle foam hat.

Mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists on the road, which
increases the danger to the remaining cyclist from motorists, which has
been shown by reputable studies in jurisdictions that have adopted MHLs.


Reducing the number of cyclists on the road increases the danger to
the remaining ones?

Oh please, post the study that shows that.

Why has mandatory helmet use in Australia not been of benefit?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

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

In article . com,
"Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:40 pm, Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Kruger" wrote:

Michael Warner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:00:28 -0700, Paul Berg wrote:

Police arrested Eschweiler and charged him with two counts of
attempted assault.

/Attempted/ assault? Sounds like he succeeded.

Succeeded all too well. Shouldn't "battery" be in there somewhere, too?

More like assault with a deadly weapon at the minimum and attempted
murder and the max. I saw a African American punch a female (all
college aged). I confronted him and told him that was not cool. His
friends came up from behind me and jumped me, besides punching me (just
had a fat lip) they hit me over the head with a beer bottle (didnt even
hurt the next day). I went straight home after ID'ing the perp's, who
the cops told me had been arrested for gang activity. The guy who hit
me over the head with the beer bottle got misdemeanor assault with a
deadly weapon (only did 2 weeks in county, but got a restraining order
and probation for 3 years).

Getting hit over the head with the bottle did less damage then the punch
to the mouth, yet he got "assault with a deadly weapon".

And you were stupid enough to get jumped knowing they were around.

The sympathy bleeds from every one of my pores.

Who is asking for sympathy? Be a ****ing man and do what one SHOULD do.
Dont be a ****ing pussy. Even if they broke some bones, bones heal, as
long as I dont die, even then I am a christian and believe in heaven
(this nick mocks someone in AGC and AT-C)

Kris Baker wrote:
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
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.

OK. Then just run into the drivers wearing seatbelts.
It'll protect you, too. Same logic.

It is a lot easier to quickly tell if a bicyclist is wearing a helmet
than if a driver is belted. If there is any type of reflection on or
tinting of the windows it may be impossible. Duh!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

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

Kris Baker wrote:
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
Kris Baker wrote:

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.

MY own head is all the study I need.

So you extrapolate an accident with a hard-shell MOTORCYCLE helmet to a
BICYCLE foam hat that has 1/8 the mass and covers a significantly
smaller area of the head? And you expect the foam bicycle hat to provide
similar protection? Sheesh!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

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

Bill Shatzer wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

-snip-

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.

http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pr...meteffect.html

http://tinyurl.com/yqk6xl
http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6922/173

Since when is Thompson, Rivara, Thompson considered a reputable study?
Dorothy Robinson debunked Thompson, Rivara, Thompson years ago. Do you
believe that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of injuries to parts of the
body other than the head?

And all the other links cite Thompson, Rivara, Thompson.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

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

In article , Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:

Please post some citations showing that a thin web of expanded
polystyrene will significantly reduce serious brain trauma in accidents.

Once I read that the helmet test was a 6 foot fall, I realized it was
pointless to wear one since I am over 6' tall. The logic being that it
would be inconsistant to wear one when bicycling but not wear one in
practically every other activity I did. The helmet protected me from
falling, somewhat. The danger I face bicycling is from multi-thousand
pound motorvehicles. I face the danger of falling climbing the front
stairs.

In article YrMxi.701$A57.468@trnddc04, 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?!!

Some motorists want MHLs because they feel if they hit a bicyclist it won't
hurt them as much. If they feel the bicyclist is better protected
they will compensate for it for it by passing closer. Far too many
drivers are too lazy to move over and an MHL helps the thinking that
excuses that laziness.