|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== ========================= |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet Nazis at It Again!
"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? |
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 |