Helmet Nazis at It Again!

Gary L. Burnore wrote:


No? Never been behind one who runs straight through an intersection
without stopping or turns in front of you with out signalling?

Of course, but there are far many more pedestrians that do this (as
inexplicable as it is -- people get killed right in the middle of the
street all the time, and I'm not sure at whom to marvel at more, the
ped or the driver). Right-of-way is not conditional. The roads are
ours. We choose to share it with motorists, not the other way around.
If we wish to exercise an "executive priviledge" of sorts every now and
then, well, I don't see why not. As it is, motorists do far worse over
half the time anyway.

No, they're not. Not by law. Not by custom. Not by fact.

The law is stupid, so let's not even go there. It is truly the
handmaiden of power, and changes underwear every now and then.

In fact, bicyclists are just pedestrians on wheels. Roller-bladers are
right after us, then the joggers, then the lil' old ladies with the
grocery carts.

Then you're simply a moron.

Your mother what?

Nope. Roads belong to the public. ALL of the public. Not just you.

The roads belong to pedestrians. Even a fat-**** like you gets taken
out for a walk every now and then, I'm sure.

In a few cases yes, in a few cases no.

Always. In fact, you can't just run over someone even if they are in
the middle of an eight-lane highway!

In some cases, yes. But then there are cyclists who make it bad for
the rest of us by doing stupid things like stopping traffic and not
obeying traffic laws. You one of those? I'm not.

I don't even wear a helmet. I simply go where I may.

**** traffic laws. Motorists certainly do. I recognize no authority
other than physics and my own common sense. It's blatantly ludicrous
to imagine bicyclists in the same league as cars. Absurd! Ridiculous!
Utterly liberal!

moron.

Go, child: may you meet the road at the end of a very red semi.

--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================

Bill Sornson wrote:
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:50:24 GMT, (Bill
Z.) wrote:

Nobody is claiming that helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

Lots of people are.

Name a few.

From congresscritters to lobyists, lots of people are.

Just as I thought. If you find someone who "claim(s) that helmets are a
panacea", then let us know who it is. (By name.)

I don't really follow football, but I bet the QB in Pittsburgh who got
smacked this summer wishes he was wearing a helmet. He was on a
motorcycle, but once you go airborne it doesn't really matter how you
got that way. It isn't the falling that hurts you, it is the landing.

As an aside, many helmets are not used correctly and therefore have
their safety compromized. They are really "one use" items. If you
bonk your head or even drop the helmet, its time for a new one. For a
big, expensive, well made motorcycle helmet that is worlds better than
a styrofoam bicycle helmet, if you hit the road or even drop it from
waist high, you are supposed to send it back to the company x-raying or
inspection. Otherwise it might split or do something nasty on the next
time you need it.

So here is my thought on bicycle helmets. For low-speed, "minor"
accidents they distribute some force over a larger area and keep you
from getting road rash. When they earn their keep is in accidents that
demolish the styrofoam instead of your head. But it doesn't take muc
more force than that to go beyond what the helmet can protect you from.
So I'm sure they work, but there a small zone between need a helmet
and too much force for the helmet.

For people who like helmets and believe in them, you could always hedge
your bets by wearing a light motorcycle helmet.

Another totally out of control thread on helmets again.
Every year.
Go ride, with or without. You are doing more harm sitting and typing
than you know and need a good ride with or without a brain bucket to go
clear your collective heads.
Bill Baka
Nice weather today

Bill Baka writes:

Another totally out of control thread on helmets again.
Every year.
Go ride, with or without. You are doing more harm sitting and typing
than you know and need a good ride with or without a brain bucket to
go clear your collective heads.
Bill Baka
Nice weather today

Hey don't blame me! I didn't start it and told people the topic
was already beaten to death when some idiot called me a "helmetnazi"
for a short post that said:

We went over this crap for years, and the "helmets don't work"
claim has been completely discredited. Nobody is claiming
that helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Bill Baka writes:

Another totally out of control thread on helmets again.
Every year.
Go ride, with or without. You are doing more harm sitting and typing
than you know and need a good ride with or without a brain bucket to
go clear your collective heads.
Bill Baka
Nice weather today

Hey don't blame me! I didn't start it and told people the topic
was already beaten to death when some idiot called me a "helmetnazi"
for a short post that said:

We went over this crap for years, and the "helmets don't work"
claim has been completely discredited. Nobody is claiming
that helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

No blame intended. It is just that lately someone (Dolan?),
(Brickston?), thinks he has to post to 5 groups and gets a mess started.
If we could just find and killfile these cross posters, life would bet
back to normal, such as it is on this group.
Bill (bicycle stuff, please) Baka
Helmet free on a bicycle for 50+ years. Lucky too.

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:50:24 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:


Useful for scratches and scrapes perhaps.
But preventing serious injuries - zero (or negative) effect.
A net health cost.

Pure rubbish! Measurements have shown a positive effect and
the things are dirt cheap. Check the archives if you want to
read up on it.



Read up on it he
http://www.officeofroadsafety.wa.gov...gislation.html

Admittedly, this is talking about the costs versus benefits of enforced
mandatory helmet laws, rather than the helmets themselves. But the
largest cost to society was the cost of the helmets themselves. And
it's unlikely that cost was repaid in saved medical costs. Here's the
summary from one of the final paragraphs:

" In monetary terms, it is unlikely that the helmet wearing legislation
would have achieved net savings of any sizeable magnitude. Under the
assumptions used in the study, the most favourable estimate of the Net
Present Value of the bicycle helmet legislation was $2.0 million, and
this calculation excluded any costs associated with reduced cycling
activity."

Regarding that final line: the _least_ favorable estimate was a
monetary loss to society of $10,584,000. In essence, they're saying
the effect of the helmet law, enforced throughout the entire territory,
might have been from +$2 million to -$10 million. It was probably a
net loss to society, and that's without even taking into effect future
medical costs from less exercise, more driving, more air pollution,
more cars to run down pedestrians, etc.

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:16:32 GMT, Bill Baka wrote:

Bill Z. wrote:
Bill Baka writes:

Another totally out of control thread on helmets again.
Every year.
Go ride, with or without. You are doing more harm sitting and typing
than you know and need a good ride with or without a brain bucket to
go clear your collective heads.
Bill Baka
Nice weather today

Hey don't blame me! I didn't start it and told people the topic
was already beaten to death when some idiot called me a "helmetnazi"
for a short post that said:

We went over this crap for years, and the "helmets don't work"
claim has been completely discredited. Nobody is claiming
that helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

No blame intended. It is just that lately someone (Dolan?),
(Brickston?), thinks he has to post to 5 groups and gets a mess started.
If we could just find and killfile these cross posters, life would bet
back to normal, such as it is on this group.
Bill (bicycle stuff, please) Baka
Helmet free on a bicycle for 50+ years. Lucky too.

You are dumber than a stone. Your post above can be found on all these
groups:

nyc.bicycles,alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,r ec.bicycles.misc,nyc.general

FYI- You ****wit, these crossposts are not started by me, ever. And I
don't think Dolan goes beyond his 'bent group. You on the other hand,
will nilly jsut post away completley oblivious to where it ends up.
And then have the imnitigated gall ot play an innocent. You're
*complete* asshole.

wrote:
Regarding that final line: the _least_ favorable estimate was a
monetary loss to society of $10,584,000. In essence, they're saying
the effect of the helmet law, enforced throughout the entire territory,
might have been from +$2 million to -$10 million. It was probably a
net loss to society, and that's without even taking into effect future
medical costs from less exercise, more driving, more air pollution,
more cars to run down pedestrians, etc.

Plus, there's the effect that the more cyclists that are on the
road, the safer they all are. So if helmet laws discourage
people from cycling, then there's probably a net loss in safety
because of that.

See also http://komanoff.net/bicycle/safety_in_numbers.php .

--
Steven O'Neill
Brooklyn, NY

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:



Read up on it he
http://www.officeofroadsafety.wa.gov...gislation.html

Admittedly, this is talking about the costs versus benefits of enforced
mandatory helmet laws, rather than the helmets themselves. But the
largest cost to society was the cost of the helmets themselves. And
it's unlikely that cost was repaid in saved medical costs. Here's the
summary from one of the final paragraphs:

Note the non sequitur since we were actually talking about whether the
helmets did anything useful, not the competence of elected
representatives, who pass ill-conceived, even if well-intentioned,
laws all the time. Hopefully their mistakes get corrected.

What Krygowski posted is not exactly true, however - an Australian
study performed by Paul Scuffham showed that mandatory helmet laws
were cost effective for children but not for adults (many of whom, as
we know, ride very short distances). There is approximately a factor
of 1000 difference in annual mileage for adults riding bicycles. I
know people at both ends of the scale (around 5 miles per year versus
over 5000). You make helmet purchases mandatory for a lot of adults
who put their helmets on once a year to do little more than ride
around the block, and it isn't surprising that the result is not
particularly cost effective.

The sensible conclusion is that adults should make their own decisions
regarding helmet use. What is cost effective for one may not be cost
effective for another.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"dgk" wrote in message
...
On 15 Sep 2006 07:26:39 -0700, "NYC XYZ"
wrote:


Are you kidding; the only liberals in this town are the chattering
classes when they're at work. At home and at play they're less liberal
than you might think.

What's a chattering class?

Sort of pig-latin for Hattering Ass?