|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
Gary L. Burnore wrote in news:eeehd9$kc3$5
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com: On 15 Sep 2006 06:55:18 -0700, "Lucky07" top posted like an ignorant ****ing moron and wrote: Should, bicyclists wear helmets? In my opinion, yes. But that's a choice. It SHOULD be a choice. HelmetNazis don't think it should just as Motorcycle HelmetNazis don't think it should. Since people who want all bicyclists to wear helmets are HelmetNazis, just what slur do you use for people who insist minor are the only ones who should be compelled to wear helmets when cycling? Child Molestors? And what do you call the parents who break that law and don't even provide a helmet for their children? Perhaps it would make more sense if you changed your diatribes to address HelmetFundies instead of HelmetNazis? Especially when it's the people hereabouts who only have to doff a motorcycle helmet upon crossing state lines who normally have a coal scuttle/Nazi helmet in reserve. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:34:10 -0400, Gary L. Burnore
wrote: On 15 Sep 2006 07:16:51 -0700, "NYC XYZ" wrote: 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 run red lights, or more exactly, proceed carefully through them. It takes me 1:15 to get to work as it is. The lights are not timed for me, they're timed for cars. If I had to stop and wait at every red light I hit, I would not be able to commute by bike. Most streets around me are one way, which makes it much easier to proceed through the lights. I always thought that equating cars with bikes was stupid. I'm not a car, I can't accelerate like a car, nor hit the speed of a car. Not even in the city. I have never hit 30mph and likely never will. So why should I be stuck waiting for lights that are synchronized for 35mph? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
On 15 Sep 2006 07:26:39 -0700, "NYC XYZ"
wrote: wrote: Wait a minute! You live in NYC, ride a 'bent and are NOT a liberal?!? Don't burst my bubble like that. I enjoy my stereotyped world. ;-) Joseph 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? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
Gary L. Burnore writes:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:50:24 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote: writes: No need to couple the helmet at all - population studies show that they have no positive effect. We went over this crap for years, and the "helmets don't work" claim has been completely discredited. No positive effect isn't the same thing as not working, helmetnazi. Really? Something not working has a positive effect??? "Helmetnazi"???? Look, retard, saying helmets do something useful does not make one a "helmetnazi" - it's not like I give a damn whether you use one or not. If someone is going around insisting that you use one when you don't want to (maybe it will mess up your hairstyle or something), then tell that person to f___ off. That's all you have to do. You don't have to whine on usenet. Nobody is claiming that helmets are a panacea, but they are useful. Lots of people are. Not so - I presume you mean people on this newsgroup, not some reporter filling space in some newspaper article. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
dgk wrote: On 15 Sep 2006 07:26:39 -0700, "NYC XYZ" wrote: wrote: Wait a minute! You live in NYC, ride a 'bent and are NOT a liberal?!? Don't burst my bubble like that. I enjoy my stereotyped world. ;-) Joseph 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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattering_classes In other words, someone who doesn't turn a wrench, or carry boxes for a living, yet professes to know what is best for those who do (and everyone else for that matter...). Joseph PS: I'm just stoking the flames on what is aready an out of control thread. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
dgk wrote: What's a chattering class? Lawyers, writers, professors, people who deal with words a lot. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== ========================= |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience | Ozark Bicycle | Techniques | 5472 | August 13th 06 11:47 AM |
Helmet debate, helmet debate | SuzieB | Australia | 135 | March 30th 06 07:58 AM |
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet | gwhite | Techniques | 1015 | August 27th 05 08:36 AM |
Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through | Chris B. | General | 1379 | February 9th 05 04:10 PM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |