Re: Paramount

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au>
wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> Smarmy and deluded you are.
>
>Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who disagree with
>me will further my cause, though.
>
>One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet wars are
>unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding rather than waste so
>much time, energy and bile on such a trivial issue.

You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
of things, hurting cycling with your views.

And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding w/o
helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to smoke,
drink too much, let themselves get fat"

You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or requirements to
end, the world would be better off without.

An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Tim McNamara]

In article <e6b293p4sq8prld0jno4gil82v5159somt@4ax.com>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner
> <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> >> Smarmy and deluded you are.
> >
> >Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who disagree
> >with me will further my cause, though.
> >
> >One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet wars
> >are unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding rather than
> >waste so much time, energy and bile on such a trivial issue.
>
> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
> of things, hurting cycling with your views.
>
> And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding w/o
> helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to smoke,
> drink too much, let themselves get fat"
>
> You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
> smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
> benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or requirements
> to end, the world would be better off without.
>
> An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.

I don't follow your logic here, JFT. How is just getting on one's bike
and going riding "anti-cycling?" He lives in a place with a MHL, which
could be construed as anti-cycling, but unless he authored or helped
pass the law I don't see the connection.

[Michael Warner]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:32:07 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
> of things, hurting cycling with your views.

<plonk>

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:39:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>In article <e6b293p4sq8prld0jno4gil82v5159somt@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner
>> <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >
>> >> Smarmy and deluded you are.
>> >
>> >Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who disagree
>> >with me will further my cause, though.
>> >
>> >One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet wars
>> >are unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding rather than
>> >waste so much time, energy and bile on such a trivial issue.
>>
>> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
>> of things, hurting cycling with your views.
>>
>> And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding w/o
>> helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to smoke,
>> drink too much, let themselves get fat"
>>
>> You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
>> smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
>> benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or requirements
>> to end, the world would be better off without.
>>
>> An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.
>
>I don't follow your logic here, JFT. How is just getting on one's bike
>and going riding "anti-cycling?" He lives in a place with a MHL, which
>could be construed as anti-cycling, but unless he authored or helped
>pass the law I don't see the connection.

He's saying, in public, that cycling without a helmet is a net danger.
That plays right into the hands of MHL. It's supporting their
rationale.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 8, 2:47 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:39:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
>
>
>
>
>
> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >In article <e6b293p4sq8prld0jno4gil82v5159s...@4ax.com>,
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner
> >> <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> >> >> Smarmy and deluded you are.
>
> >> >Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who disagree
> >> >with me will further my cause, though.
>
> >> >One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet wars
> >> >are unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding rather than
> >> >waste so much time, energy and bile on such a trivial issue.
>
> >> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
> >> of things, hurting cycling with your views.
>
> >> And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding w/o
> >> helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to smoke,
> >> drink too much, let themselves get fat"
>
> >> You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
> >> smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
> >> benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or requirements
> >> to end, the world would be better off without.
>
> >> An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.
>
> >I don't follow your logic here, JFT. How is just getting on one's bike
> >and going riding "anti-cycling?" He lives in a place with a MHL, which
> >could be construed as anti-cycling, but unless he authored or helped
> >pass the law I don't see the connection.
>
> He's saying, in public, that cycling without a helmet is a net danger.
> That plays right into the hands of MHL. It's supporting their
> rationale.

I advocate riding on the right side of the road, not riding brakeless
fixed gears, not running lights, using lights at night, etc., etc. I
guess I am just anti-bicycling?

I mean motorist have to wear seatbelts, use booster seats for kids
under 4'9", not drive and talk on cellphones, etc., etc. What is the
big f****** deal with wearing a helmet on a bike? Helmets do prevent
certain injuries, and who cares if they are not super-big, fatal
injuries. Getting one's head stitched up still uses ER time, unless
you are doing your own stitches at home with your Velox tubular repair
kit. Don't forget the Rema tetanus booster.

And considering that MHLs in most US states only apply to kids,it is
even more ridiculous to argue the point.

I don't care about all the nellies in New Zeland or Australia who
allegedly quit riding a bike due to the MHL. Bicyclists are as thick
as fleas in PDX, and the vast majority wear helmets without anyone
saying a word. The kids have to wear helmets by law, and I don't see
any mass exodus of kids from the world of cycling. The truth is that
their parents drive them every where. That's what's keeping them from
riding.

You want to promote cycling? Tell your kid to ride his bike. I do. I
also tell him to wear his helmet, which he does. I don't want to
spend all day in an ER getting his scalp stitched up -- although the
last time he split his scalp, I just tied his hair together, but that
was when he had long hair and a recent tetanus booster. Anyway, who
knows, maybe the helmet will prevent some greater injury, like skull
fracture (as opposed to rotational injury), and I certainly cannot fix
a skull fracture at home.-- Jay Beattie.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <dqm29319ff0mc3sjg6jq7s5ur8p1r1ae4a@4ax.com>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:39:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <e6b293p4sq8prld0jno4gil82v5159somt@4ax.com>,
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner
> >> <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Smarmy and deluded you are.
> >> >
> >> >Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who
> >> >disagree with me will further my cause, though.
> >> >
> >> >One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet
> >> >wars are unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding
> >> >rather than waste so much time, energy and bile on such a trivial
> >> >issue.
> >>
> >> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big
> >> scheme of things, hurting cycling with your views.
> >>
> >> And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding
> >> w/o helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to
> >> smoke, drink too much, let themselves get fat"
> >>
> >> You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
> >> smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
> >> benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or
> >> requirements to end, the world would be better off without.
> >>
> >> An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.
> >
> >I don't follow your logic here, JFT. How is just getting on one's
> >bike and going riding "anti-cycling?" He lives in a place with a
> >MHL, which could be construed as anti-cycling, but unless he
> >authored or helped pass the law I don't see the connection.
>
> He's saying, in public, that cycling without a helmet is a net
> danger. That plays right into the hands of MHL. It's supporting
> their rationale.

I think that's a stretch. It's like saying that the fact I don't own a
gun is playing into the hands of those who want to overthrow the Second
Amendment.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:04:49 -0700, Jay Beattie
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>I advocate riding on the right side of the road, not riding brakeless
>fixed gears, not running lights, using lights at night, etc., etc. I
>guess I am just anti-bicycling?

If the stuff you say actually makes cycling safer, then I don't think
so.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:04:49 -0700, Jay Beattie
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>And considering that MHLs in most US states only apply to kids,it is
>even more ridiculous to argue the point.

They are spreading.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:04:49 -0700, Jay Beattie
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>Bicyclists are as thick
>as fleas in PDX, and the vast majority wear helmets without anyone
>saying a word.

Where is this place? It's not true where I live (New York City)

>The kids have to wear helmets by law, and I don't see
>any mass exodus of kids from the world of cycling

Oh but it is -- fear of the roads is a part of it. Some of that fear
is reasonable and some of it is misplaced, but think of the attitudes
of parents nowadays to letting their kids walk or ride to school. Ask
parents what they would do if the kids refuse to wear a helmet. We've
seen at least one person is this group way "Well then they can't
ride."
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Bill Sornson]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2:47 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:39:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>> In article <e6b293p4sq8prld0jno4gil82v5159s...@4ax.com>,
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner
>>>> <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Smarmy and deluded you are.
>>
>>>>> Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who
>>>>> disagree with me will further my cause, though.
>>
>>>>> One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet
>>>>> wars are unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding
>>>>> rather than waste so much time, energy and bile on such a trivial
>>>>> issue.
>>
>>>> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big
>>>> scheme of things, hurting cycling with your views.
>>
>>>> And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding
>>>> w/o helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to
>>>> smoke, drink too much, let themselves get fat"
>>
>>>> You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
>>>> smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
>>>> benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or requirements
>>>> to end, the world would be better off without.
>>
>>>> An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.
>>
>>> I don't follow your logic here, JFT. How is just getting on one's
>>> bike and going riding "anti-cycling?" He lives in a place with a
>>> MHL, which could be construed as anti-cycling, but unless he
>>> authored or helped pass the law I don't see the connection.
>>
>> He's saying, in public, that cycling without a helmet is a net
>> danger. That plays right into the hands of MHL. It's supporting
>> their rationale.
>
> I advocate riding on the right side of the road, not riding brakeless
> fixed gears, not running lights, using lights at night, etc., etc. I
> guess I am just anti-bicycling?
>
> I mean motorist have to wear seatbelts, use booster seats for kids
> under 4'9", not drive and talk on cellphones, etc., etc. What is the
> big f****** deal with wearing a helmet on a bike? Helmets do prevent
> certain injuries, and who cares if they are not super-big, fatal
> injuries. Getting one's head stitched up still uses ER time, unless
> you are doing your own stitches at home with your Velox tubular repair
> kit. Don't forget the Rema tetanus booster.
>
> And considering that MHLs in most US states only apply to kids,it is
> even more ridiculous to argue the point.
>
> I don't care about all the nellies in New Zeland or Australia who
> allegedly quit riding a bike due to the MHL. Bicyclists are as thick
> as fleas in PDX, and the vast majority wear helmets without anyone
> saying a word. The kids have to wear helmets by law, and I don't see
> any mass exodus of kids from the world of cycling. The truth is that
> their parents drive them every where. That's what's keeping them from
> riding.
>
> You want to promote cycling? Tell your kid to ride his bike. I do. I
> also tell him to wear his helmet, which he does. I don't want to
> spend all day in an ER getting his scalp stitched up -- although the
> last time he split his scalp, I just tied his hair together, but that
> was when he had long hair and a recent tetanus booster. Anyway, who
> knows, maybe the helmet will prevent some greater injury, like skull
> fracture (as opposed to rotational injury), and I certainly cannot fix
> a skull fracture at home.-- Jay Beattie.

Well said. ("In public" -- LOL )

Bill "and who-know-who stole 'smarmy' from me" S.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 8, 8:04 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2:47 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > He's saying, in public, that cycling without a helmet is a net danger.
> > That plays right into the hands of MHL. It's supporting their
> > rationale.
>
> I advocate riding on the right side of the road, not riding brakeless
> fixed gears, not running lights, using lights at night, etc., etc. I
> guess I am just anti-bicycling?

Please, Jay. You're a lawyer. You should be able to spot the
differences.

The items you list above are all standard rules of the road for ALL
vehicle operators. Saying they apply to bicyclists is in no way
discriminatory, and does not imply that cycling is more dangerous than
other transportation modes.

Requiring helmets, or even promoting helmets as extremely valuable, is
another matter entirely. It's founded on the mistaken idea that
cycling generates an extraordinary number of serious head injuries.
Publicizing that falsehood IS anti-cycling!

>
> I mean motorist have to wear seatbelts, use booster seats for kids
> under 4'9", not drive and talk on cellphones, etc., etc. What is the
> big f****** deal with wearing a helmet on a bike? Helmets do prevent
> certain injuries, and who cares if they are not super-big, fatal
> injuries. Getting one's head stitched up still uses ER time...

So why do your ideas not apply to all the OTHER sources of even minor
head injuries? In fact, why do they not apply to all other sources of
stitched-up wounds anywhere on the body? Is a stitch on the scalp
somehow worse than a stitch on the neck, or hand, or other body part?

Face it, you HAVE bought into the propaganda.

And for you, wearing a helmet may not be a big deal, but it obviously
is for others. If that were not so, there would be no helmet laws.
And if someone detests wearing a particular fashion accessory, why
should they conform to your idea of fashion?

(And don't pretend it isn't "fashion" unless you're willing to give us
data showing cycling's risks are extreme. Good luck finding that!)

> And considering that MHLs in most US states only apply to kids,it is
> even more ridiculous to argue the point.

It's ridiculous to accept those MHLs. I chose to let my kids ride
helmetless, based on my knowledge of the subject and my personal
judgement. My judgement turned out to be perfectly correct - the kids
never came close to ANY head injury, and they continued riding when
they otherwise would not have, until (and after) they were adults. In
fact, my own parents made the same correct decision. The science in
this matter does NOT justify taking away the rights of parents to
decide this issue!

> I don't care about all the nellies in New Zeland or Australia who
> allegedly quit riding a bike due to the MHL.

Then you don't care about promoting cycling. Which is fine, I
suppose, in the sense that everyone chooses their issues.

But you're going beyond that. You're arguing from ignorance (the
preceding "allegedly" indicates that) and attacking people who DO care
about this issue, simply because it's not your issue. That's pretty
intolerant.

> Bicyclists are as thick
> as fleas in PDX, and the vast majority wear helmets without anyone
> saying a word.

Sorry, that's bull****. People did NOT wear bike helmets until there
were many, many thousands of false words thrown about. Granted, lots
of Portland folks may now be doing it just because everyone else does
it - but the process started with lies about unusual dangers, and lies
about extraordinary protection.

If you travel today to places where "nobody has said a word" about
bike helmets, you'll see lots of cyclists, but you will NOT see lots
of helmets. I've been there.

> The kids have to wear helmets by law, and I don't see
> any mass exodus of kids from the world of cycling.

How would you tell??

> The truth is that
> their parents drive them every where. That's what's keeping them from
> riding.

And why do you think parents don't just let their kids bike, as they
did a generation ago? Ask some parents! Yes, some of it is probably
senseless fear of stranger abduction (another ridiculous paranoia),
but much of it is fear for the kids' safety on bikes.

Why are parents now fearful of kids' safety on bikes? Because ever
since about 1985, they've been told that a simple fall off a bike can
kill their kid - as if my generation had piles of kids bodies in every
morgue!

Decades of fearmongering have had their effects. Sure, one effect has
been to sell millions of overpriced helmets, and make tons of money
for big corporations. The other effect has been to suppress cycling,
about which those big corporations don't give a damn. And neither,
apparently, do you.

>
> You want to promote cycling? Tell your kid to ride his bike. I do. I
> also tell him to wear his helmet, which he does.

And what will you do when your kid says "If I have to wear that thing,
I'm not going to ride my bike."

I've known families where that happened. I've known parents who said
"Then you can't ride." And the kid never did again. Not once.

> I don't want to
> spend all day in an ER getting his scalp stitched up -- although the
> last time he split his scalp, I just tied his hair together, but that
> was when he had long hair and a recent tetanus booster. Anyway, who
> knows, maybe the helmet will prevent some greater injury, like skull
> fracture (as opposed to rotational injury), and I certainly cannot fix
> a skull fracture at home.

Again, you're giving ample evidence that you've bought all the
propaganda. You apparently do believe that lacerated scalps, skull
fractures or worse are a likely outcome of bicycling. Unless, that
is, you make your kid wear a helmet while playing tag, climbing trees,
playing baseball (even outfield), running through the woods...

You've hung around Usenet for years. You're not an unintelligent
guy. Is there _nothing_ we can do to get you to actually look up the
facts?

- Frank Krygowski

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:15:09 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>In article <dqm29319ff0mc3sjg6jq7s5ur8p1r1ae4a@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:39:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <e6b293p4sq8prld0jno4gil82v5159somt@4ax.com>,
>> > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner
>> >> <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Smarmy and deluded you are.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who
>> >> >disagree with me will further my cause, though.
>> >> >
>> >> >One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet
>> >> >wars are unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding
>> >> >rather than waste so much time, energy and bile on such a trivial
>> >> >issue.
>> >>
>> >> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big
>> >> scheme of things, hurting cycling with your views.
>> >>
>> >> And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding
>> >> w/o helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to
>> >> smoke, drink too much, let themselves get fat"
>> >>
>> >> You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
>> >> smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
>> >> benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or
>> >> requirements to end, the world would be better off without.
>> >>
>> >> An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.
>> >
>> >I don't follow your logic here, JFT. How is just getting on one's
>> >bike and going riding "anti-cycling?" He lives in a place with a
>> >MHL, which could be construed as anti-cycling, but unless he
>> >authored or helped pass the law I don't see the connection.
>>
>> He's saying, in public, that cycling without a helmet is a net
>> danger. That plays right into the hands of MHL. It's supporting
>> their rationale.
>
>I think that's a stretch. It's like saying that the fact I don't own a
>gun is playing into the hands of those who want to overthrow the Second
>Amendment.

If you said youI don't own a gun because guns have no possible use in
America that'd be analogous.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:23:34 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:15:09 -0500, Tim McNamara
><timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <dqm29319ff0mc3sjg6jq7s5ur8p1r1ae4a@4ax.com>,
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:39:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
>>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <e6b293p4sq8prld0jno4gil82v5159somt@4ax.com>,
>>> > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner
>>> >> <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Smarmy and deluded you are.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who
>>> >> >disagree with me will further my cause, though.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet
>>> >> >wars are unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding
>>> >> >rather than waste so much time, energy and bile on such a trivial
>>> >> >issue.
>>> >>
>>> >> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big
>>> >> scheme of things, hurting cycling with your views.
>>> >>
>>> >> And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding
>>> >> w/o helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to
>>> >> smoke, drink too much, let themselves get fat"
>>> >>
>>> >> You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
>>> >> smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
>>> >> benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or
>>> >> requirements to end, the world would be better off without.
>>> >>
>>> >> An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.
>>> >
>>> >I don't follow your logic here, JFT. How is just getting on one's
>>> >bike and going riding "anti-cycling?" He lives in a place with a
>>> >MHL, which could be construed as anti-cycling, but unless he
>>> >authored or helped pass the law I don't see the connection.
>>>
>>> He's saying, in public, that cycling without a helmet is a net
>>> danger. That plays right into the hands of MHL. It's supporting
>>> their rationale.
>>
>>I think that's a stretch. It's like saying that the fact I don't own a
>>gun is playing into the hands of those who want to overthrow the Second
>>Amendment.
>
>If you said youI don't own a gun because guns have no possible use in
>America that'd be analogous.

Excuse me, I meant if you said you don't own a gun because guns have
no possible legitimate use in America, that'd be analogous.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Michael Warner wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:32:07 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
>> of things, hurting cycling with your views.
>
> <plonk>

I thought spirited discussion was part of the fun of Usenet?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

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

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:17:56 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au>
wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:32:07 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
>> of things, hurting cycling with your views.
>
><plonk>

It would be far more helpful if you stopped posting about helmet and
thought/read about them more.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Michael Warner]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:51:50 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> I thought spirited discussion was part of the fun of Usenet?

I thoroughly enjoy a good argument, although I don't read these
bike groups with that in mind, since (a) most people here know
much more about bikes than I do, and (b) I already inhabit a
non-topic-specific discussion group on a private server, and much
prefer not having to worry about trying to stay on-topic.

IMHO worthwhile "spirited discussion" doesn't include being targeted
with increasingly outlandish, humourless insults intended only to provoke
the same reaction and start a flame war. Once I see this behaviour, I
plonk people.

Another indicator that one is dealing with a relentless zealot is the
constant creation of straw men. This one has somehow concluded that
I'm in favour of mandatory helmet laws for adults everywhere, and that I'd
always wear one if I had a choice. Neither is the case, FWIW.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:15:37 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au>
wrote:

>IMHO worthwhile "spirited discussion" doesn't include being targeted
>with increasingly outlandish, humourless insults intended only to provoke
>the same reaction and start a flame war. Once I see this behaviour, I
>plonk people.

I'm not trying to provoke you. I pointed out that your analogy that
cycling w/o a helmet like smoking is anti-cycling, and by claiming it
you are anti-cycling, regardless of your intentions. Please think hard
and carefully about your statement and what it means.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 8, 9:45 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:51:50 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > I thought spirited discussion was part of the fun of Usenet?
>
> I thoroughly enjoy a good argument, although I don't read these
> bike groups with that in mind, since (a) most people here know
> much more about bikes than I do, and (b) I already inhabit a
> non-topic-specific discussion group on a private server, and much
> prefer not having to worry about trying to stay on-topic.
>
> IMHO worthwhile "spirited discussion" doesn't include being targeted
> with increasingly outlandish, humourless insults intended only to provoke
> the same reaction and start a flame war. Once I see this behaviour, I
> plonk people.
>
> Another indicator that one is dealing with a relentless zealot is the
> constant creation of straw men. This one has somehow concluded that
> I'm in favour of mandatory helmet laws for adults everywhere, and that I'd
> always wear one if I had a choice. Neither is the case, FWIW.

Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not. In the past,
there has been some useful information exchanged, but that is drying
up as later threads become short-hand for earlier threads. The later
threads skip over the information and go right to the name calling,
particularly when cross-posted to the U.K. groups. This is a rather
tame go-round by recent standards. -- Jay Beattie.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 9, 11:15 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
> over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.

Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads for
10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's available
on the subject!

Try www.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.

- Frank Krygowski

[A Muzi]

-snip helmet-
Jay Beattie wrote:
> Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
> over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not. In the past,
> there has been some useful information exchanged, but that is drying
> up as later threads become short-hand for earlier threads. The later
> threads skip over the information and go right to the name calling,
> particularly when cross-posted to the U.K. groups. This is a rather
> tame go-round by recent standards. -- Jay Beattie.

Godwin Time!
Could someone please use 'nazi' as a pejorative so we can move on?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[_]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:15:22 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:

> Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
> over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not. In the past,
> there has been some useful information exchanged, but that is drying
> up as later threads become short-hand for earlier threads. The later
> threads skip over the information and go right to the name calling,
> particularly when cross-posted to the U.K. groups. This is a rather
> tame go-round by recent standards. -- Jay Beattie.

On the contrary, the helmet posts in u.r.c are much more polite. The lack
of r.b.t.'s two resident buffoons (and their minor camp followers) probably
has something to do with this.

It's also probably worth stating, for the benefit of any r.b.t. readers who
have not also read helmet threads in u.r.c., that not only is the tone more
civil but the majority of opinion there is fact-based, which of course
means also that they come to a conclusion which reflects the fact that the
USofA has so many, many MHLs, while the UK has none.

[Michael Warner]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:15:22 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:

> Welcome to hemet threads!

Thanks, but I can't afford more than the standard 5 minutes of abuse,
and I'm sure you have other customers waiting :-)

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 9, 8:43 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 9, 11:15 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
> > over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.
>
> Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads for
> 10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's available
> on the subject!
>
> Trywww.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.

Frank, I was reading that **** before I even started posting to this
group. It was a work requirement -- particularly those studies
showing that helmets reduce focal injury (such as skull frature). I
had a spate of fork failure cases 10-15 years ago involving helmetless
bohemians who smacked their noggins (fractures, stitches mostly -- and
MBI). I talked to real MD/PhD biomechanics about the protective
benefits of bicycle helmets -- in those cases and several others.

Regrettably, the MHL in Oregon did away with my comparative fault
defense based on the failure to wear a helmet. The local anti-MHL
people ignore the fact that the Oregon law says that evidence of
failure to wear a helmet is not admissible in a personal injury
action. This protects adults who are not even subject to the law
(which only requires that kids wear helmets).

Note that wearing a helmet is often a credibility booster for the
plaintiff in MBI cases. I have had to look at a fair number of cracked
helmets and had to endure plaintiffs and their lawyers pointing and
saying "ahah, there, you see -- it was a serious impact. It cracked
the helmet." It's like body damage in an auto case. We never even get
in to the evidentiary value of helmets on this NG. I suppose if you
don't wear a helmet, you get a laceration or a skull fracture -- which
is even more dramatic evidence of impact, but then the jury goes "why
weren't you wearing a helmet"? Wear a helmet. Collect evidence
without getting stitches. Never know when something on one of these
uber-light bikes might break and send you OTB.

BTW, I do not represent motorists or their insurers in auto v. bike
cases -- only manufacturers and sellers in products cases. The
accidents I see generally involve falls and not impacts with cars,
except for the very rare case against a helmet manufacturer. I had a
case against a helmet manufacturer brought by a cyclist who got hit by
a Taurus and broke his neck. Didn't pay a dime on that since, as you
know, helmets don't magically prevent neck injuries. -- Jay Beattie.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:11:51 -0700, Jay Beattie
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>On Jul 9, 8:43 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 11:15 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
>> > over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.
>>
>> Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads for
>> 10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's available
>> on the subject!
>>
>> Trywww.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.
>
>Frank, I was reading that **** before I even started posting to this
>group. It was a work requirement -- particularly those studies
>showing that helmets reduce focal injury (such as skull frature). I
>had a spate of fork failure cases 10-15 years ago involving helmetless
>bohemians who smacked their noggins (fractures, stitches mostly -- and
>MBI). I talked to real MD/PhD biomechanics about the protective
>benefits of bicycle helmets -- in those cases and several others.
>
>Regrettably, the MHL in Oregon did away with my comparative fault
>defense based on the failure to wear a helmet. The local anti-MHL
>people ignore the fact that the Oregon law says that evidence of
>failure to wear a helmet is not admissible in a personal injury
>action. This protects adults who are not even subject to the law
>(which only requires that kids wear helmets).
>
>Note that wearing a helmet is often a credibility booster for the
>plaintiff in MBI cases. I have had to look at a fair number of cracked
>helmets and had to endure plaintiffs and their lawyers pointing and
>saying "ahah, there, you see -- it was a serious impact. It cracked
>the helmet." It's like body damage in an auto case. We never even get
>in to the evidentiary value of helmets on this NG. I suppose if you
>don't wear a helmet, you get a laceration or a skull fracture -- which
>is even more dramatic evidence of impact, but then the jury goes "why
>weren't you wearing a helmet"? Wear a helmet. Collect evidence
>without getting stitches. Never know when something on one of these
>uber-light bikes might break and send you OTB.
>
>BTW, I do not represent motorists or their insurers in auto v. bike
>cases -- only manufacturers and sellers in products cases. The
>accidents I see generally involve falls and not impacts with cars,
>except for the very rare case against a helmet manufacturer. I had a
>case against a helmet manufacturer brought by a cyclist who got hit by
>a Taurus and broke his neck. Didn't pay a dime on that since, as you
>know, helmets don't magically prevent neck injuries. -- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

No offense, but are you confusing law and money with science and
physics?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 9, 3:11 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 8:43 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 11:15 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
> > > over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.
>
> > Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads for
> > 10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's available
> > on the subject!
>
> > Try www.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.
>
> Frank, I was reading that **** before I even started posting to this
> group. It was a work requirement -- particularly those studies
> showing that helmets reduce focal injury (such as skull frature). I
> had a spate of fork failure cases 10-15 years ago involving helmetless
> bohemians who smacked their noggins (fractures, stitches mostly -- and
> MBI). I talked to real MD/PhD biomechanics about the protective
> benefits of bicycle helmets -- in those cases and several others.

With respect: There's been much learned in 10-15 years. IIRC, at
that time there were few in America questioning the actual level of
risk of head injury, and thus the need for any type of head
protection. Also at that time there were no scientific studies
showing that mass uptake of helmets produced no detectable benefit.
Furthermore, there were (IIRC) no studies noting that rotational brain
accelerations were much more damaging than linear ones.

I believe that if you could persuade your biomechanics specialists to
look impartially at the current evidence, and examine the current
state of the debate, they'd be much less pro-helmet. Certainly, when
free debate has been possible in Great Britain, the decision by
experts went against helmets. (Only tricky political moves ever
changed that.)

> Note that wearing a helmet is often a credibility booster for the
> plaintiff in MBI cases. I have had to look at a fair number of cracked
> helmets and had to endure plaintiffs and their lawyers pointing and
> saying "ahah, there, you see -- it was a serious impact. It cracked
> the helmet." It's like body damage in an auto case. We never even get
> in to the evidentiary value of helmets on this NG. I suppose if you
> don't wear a helmet, you get a laceration or a skull fracture -- which
> is even more dramatic evidence of impact, but then the jury goes "why
> weren't you wearing a helmet"? Wear a helmet.

What you're saying, in essence, is that those evaluating the legal
situation believe that cycling is dangerous, and that helmets are
wonderfully protective and necessary. In other words, they've bought
into the propaganda, just as you seem to have. Sorry, but that's not
news - and it does NOT prove the propaganda is correct.

The evidence I've seen indicates quite clearly that cycling is NOT an
unusual source of serious head injuries. It also indicates that
helmets are NOT particularly effective in mitigating those few serious
head injuries that do occur. IOW, the best evidence shows helmets are
an ineffective solution to a largely nonexistent problem.

If you're going to take part in these discussions, you really should
examine the evidence.

- Frank Krygowski

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:ug2593lldtd4g1c39p51j1kfjfjkr136nq@4ax.com,
carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:11:51 -0700, Jay Beattie
> <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 9, 8:43 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 9, 11:15 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a
>>>> little over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.
>>>
>>> Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads
>>> for 10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's
>>> available on the subject!
>>>
>>> Trywww.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.
>>
>> Frank, I was reading that **** before I even started posting to this
>> group. It was a work requirement -- particularly those studies
>> showing that helmets reduce focal injury (such as skull frature). I
>> had a spate of fork failure cases 10-15 years ago involving
>> helmetless bohemians who smacked their noggins (fractures, stitches
>> mostly -- and MBI). I talked to real MD/PhD biomechanics about the
>> protective benefits of bicycle helmets -- in those cases and several
>> others.
>>
>> Regrettably, the MHL in Oregon did away with my comparative fault
>> defense based on the failure to wear a helmet. The local anti-MHL
>> people ignore the fact that the Oregon law says that evidence of
>> failure to wear a helmet is not admissible in a personal injury
>> action. This protects adults who are not even subject to the law
>> (which only requires that kids wear helmets).
>>
>> Note that wearing a helmet is often a credibility booster for the
>> plaintiff in MBI cases. I have had to look at a fair number of
>> cracked helmets and had to endure plaintiffs and their lawyers
>> pointing and saying "ahah, there, you see -- it was a serious
>> impact. It cracked the helmet." It's like body damage in an auto
>> case. We never even get in to the evidentiary value of helmets on
>> this NG. I suppose if you don't wear a helmet, you get a laceration
>> or a skull fracture -- which is even more dramatic evidence of
>> impact, but then the jury goes "why weren't you wearing a helmet"?
>> Wear a helmet. Collect evidence without getting stitches. Never
>> know when something on one of these uber-light bikes might break and
>> send you OTB.
>>
>> BTW, I do not represent motorists or their insurers in auto v. bike
>> cases -- only manufacturers and sellers in products cases. The
>> accidents I see generally involve falls and not impacts with cars,
>> except for the very rare case against a helmet manufacturer. I had a
>> case against a helmet manufacturer brought by a cyclist who got hit
>> by a Taurus and broke his neck. Didn't pay a dime on that since, as
>> you know, helmets don't magically prevent neck injuries. -- Jay
>> Beattie.
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> No offense, but are you confusing law and money with science and
> physics?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Not want ting to answer for Jay, but it's scientists who confuse themselves
with porters of truth. For the greater part of the wold's population, i.e.,
non-scientists, experts are often seen as evangelists, especially when they
testify one against another in a simple lawsuit. How could it happen that
scientists come to different conclusions, if science must be true? Well,
blowhards of all types and orientations claim to know answers, and opposing
views (how could THAT be!?) are resolved by people who may not have that
heavenly gift of always knowing the ultimate truths. Sometimes wrong,
sometimes right, and almost always unpredictably.

Currently, there is a controversy, politically supported, in favor of
blaming mankind for global warming, and opposed by what appears to be a
minority of differing scientists.

And currently, pseudoscientists in this forum are presenting opinions based
on limited data and even more limited testing and "scientific principles" to
suggest your yellow half-globe is just decoration, and inimical to your
health at that.

To the first dilemma, let's wait 10,000 years and see who was righter.

For the second, let's pick nice colors or well groomed haircuts and leave it
at that.
--
Sandy
--
S'endormir au volant, c'est très dangereux.
S'endormir à vélo, c'est très rare.
S'endormir à pied, c'est très con.
- Geluck, P.

[Bill Sornson]

A Muzi wrote:
> -snip helmet-
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>> Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
>> over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not. In the past,
>> there has been some useful information exchanged, but that is drying
>> up as later threads become short-hand for earlier threads. The later
>> threads skip over the information and go right to the name calling,
>> particularly when cross-posted to the U.K. groups. This is a rather
>> tame go-round by recent standards. -- Jay Beattie.

> Godwin Time!
> Could someone please use 'nazi' as a pejorative so we can move on?

Thread Nazi.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>
> Godwin Time!
> Could someone please use 'nazi' as a pejorative so we can move on?

If you wear this for fashion and/or head protection while cycling, you
are a Nazi: <http://www.ahgmilitaria.com/Medals/GermanPolice2.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


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

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 9, 2:36 pm, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:15:22 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:
> > Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
> > over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not. In the past,
> > there has been some useful information exchanged, but that is drying
> > up as later threads become short-hand for earlier threads. The later
> > threads skip over the information and go right to the name calling,
> > particularly when cross-posted to the U.K. groups. This is a rather
> > tame go-round by recent standards. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> On the contrary, the helmet posts in u.r.c are much more polite. The lack
> of r.b.t.'s two resident buffoons (and their minor camp followers) probably
> has something to do with this.

Regardless of the civility of the UK groups (which I don't doubt),
cross-posting creates a piling-on in RBT. This includes cross-posting
to the US groups, I might add. It is some sort of negative
synergistic effect.

> It's also probably worth stating, for the benefit of any r.b.t. readers who
> have not also read helmet threads in u.r.c., that not only is the tone more
> civil but the majority of opinion there is fact-based, which of course
> means also that they come to a conclusion which reflects the fact that the
> USofA has so many, many MHLs, while the UK has none.

But, for the benefit of the new-comers, you should distinguish
between: (1) arguments concerning the protective effects of helmets,
and (2) arguments concerning MHLs. I think even the UK groups agree
that helmets prevent certain types of injuries but generally conclude
that there is a net loss of ridership which results in increased
morbidity from disease -- or there is increased risk-taking, or both.
I wonder whether in the US there would be the same loss of ridership
considering the tendency in this country to wear helmets when doing
any athletic activity. In other words, helmets are part of our culture
but not part of yours.

Also note that the UK is the size of my state, Oregon. It is not
surprizing that the United States has many more MHLs. We have more of
every type of law -- almost. We do not have a television licensing
law. Because of my fact-based opinions, I have been successful in
preventing an MTL (mandatory television license) law in Oregon. -- Jay
Beattie.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Michael Warner wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:15:22 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>> Welcome to hemet threads!
>
> Thanks, but I can't afford more than the standard 5 minutes of abuse,
> and I'm sure you have other customers waiting :-)

Man - "Look! I came here for an argument."
Mr. Barnard - "Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse."

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

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

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 9, 9:37 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 9, 3:11 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 8:43 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 11:15 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
> > > > over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.
>
> > > Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads for
> > > 10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's available
> > > on the subject!
>
> > > Trywww.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.
>
> > Frank, I was reading that **** before I even started posting to this
> > group. It was a work requirement -- particularly those studies
> > showing that helmets reduce focal injury (such as skull frature). I
> > had a spate of fork failure cases 10-15 years ago involving helmetless
> > bohemians who smacked their noggins (fractures, stitches mostly -- and
> > MBI). I talked to real MD/PhD biomechanics about the protective
> > benefits of bicycle helmets -- in those cases and several others.
>
> With respect: There's been much learned in 10-15 years. IIRC, at
> that time there were few in America questioning the actual level of
> risk of head injury, and thus the need for any type of head
> protection. Also at that time there were no scientific studies
> showing that mass uptake of helmets produced no detectable benefit.
> Furthermore, there were (IIRC) no studies noting that rotational brain
> accelerations were much more damaging than linear ones.
>
> I believe that if you could persuade your biomechanics specialists to
> look impartially at the current evidence, and examine the current
> state of the debate, they'd be much less pro-helmet.

<snip>

He has, particularly with rotational injury and helmets. He is
against boxing helmets. He has nearly 200 published articles (not
including books), he was on the teaching staff at Harvard and MIT. He
has a PhD. He is not an internet expert. This is what he does for a
living. He qualifies as an expert in court. Do you?



> > Note that wearing a helmet is often a credibility booster for the
> > plaintiff in MBI cases. I have had to look at a fair number of cracked
> > helmets and had to endure plaintiffs and their lawyers pointing and
> > saying "ahah, there, you see -- it was a serious impact. It cracked
> > the helmet." It's like body damage in an auto case. We never even get
> > in to the evidentiary value of helmets on this NG. I suppose if you
> > don't wear a helmet, you get a laceration or a skull fracture -- which
> > is even more dramatic evidence of impact, but then the jury goes "why
> > weren't you wearing a helmet"? Wear a helmet.
>
> What you're saying, in essence, is that those evaluating the legal
> situation believe that cycling is dangerous, and that helmets are
> wonderfully protective and necessary. In other words, they've bought
> into the propaganda, just as you seem to have. Sorry, but that's not
> news - and it does NOT prove the propaganda is correct.
>
> The evidence I've seen indicates quite clearly that cycling is NOT an
> unusual source of serious head injuries. It also indicates that
> helmets are NOT particularly effective in mitigating those few serious
> head injuries that do occur. IOW, the best evidence shows helmets are
> an ineffective solution to a largely nonexistent problem.
>
> If you're going to take part in these discussions, you really should
> examine the evidence.

I have. I just disagree with you and do not accept epidemiology as
the be-all and end-all of a biomechanical inquiry -- or the more
particularized inquire of whether I should wear a helmet. A helmet
does protect against certain injuries. That is a fact. Am I likely
to suffer those injuries? Yes, because I have several times in the
past. Am I part of the population that would benefit from a helmet?
Yes. Do I need to wear one all the time. No. Do I take more risks
when wearing a helmet? No, because I don't like hurting any other part
of my body. Do I care about MHLs? No because they do not apply to me,
except to my benefit. Do I care if MHLs reduce the number of
cyclists? No, because there are too many cyclists who get in my way,
and I like having the road to myself. Do I care if you wear a helmet.
No. There you have it. EOM. -- Jay Beattie.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 10, 10:28 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 9:37 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > I believe that if you could persuade your biomechanics specialists to
> > look impartially at the current evidence, and examine the current
> > state of the debate, they'd be much less pro-helmet.
>
> <snip>
>
> He has, particularly with rotational injury and helmets...

That's good. But I'd be curious to hear what he thinks about the lack
of demonstrable, large-population benefit.

> He qualifies as an expert in court. Do you?

I've been asked to do that on certain subjects, yes. I've also been
asked to testify before a legislative committee on this issue.

> > If you're going to take part in these discussions, you really should
> > examine the evidence.
>
> I have. I just disagree with you and do not accept epidemiology as
> the be-all and end-all of a biomechanical inquiry -- or the more
> particularized inquire of whether I should wear a helmet.

Well, let's be clear: the question of whether _you_ should wear one
is, and should be, up to you.

But you've gone significantly beyond that. You have advocated, or at
least approved of, laws that forbid parents making that decision for
their kids. You have stated disbelief that mandating helmets deter
cycling. You have expressed approval for reducing cycling. And you
have implied that because YOU are not concerned about the negative
effects of helmet laws or promotion, that others should not discuss
it. That's going a long way past personal choice, and exposing a lot
of logically weak attitudes.

Saying "I, Jay Beattie, like to wear a helmet, and I don't want to
discuss the issue" is fine. But most of the stuff in your final
paragraph (below) is weak at best, and some is a bit offensive.

I'm not asking you to defend it, because you're clearly not
interested. But if you want to move this beyond a hit-and-run post,
we can begin with the difference between helmets' simple-model
theoretical benefits, and the real-world observations that show no
significant benefits.

> A helmet
> does protect against certain injuries. That is a fact. Am I likely
> to suffer those injuries? Yes, because I have several times in the
> past. Am I part of the population that would benefit from a helmet?
> Yes. Do I need to wear one all the time. No. Do I take more risks
> when wearing a helmet? No, because I don't like hurting any other part
> of my body. Do I care about MHLs? No because they do not apply to me,
> except to my benefit. Do I care if MHLs reduce the number of
> cyclists? No, because there are too many cyclists who get in my way,
> and I like having the road to myself. Do I care if you wear a helmet.
> No. There you have it. EOM. -- Jay Beattie.

- Frank Krygowski

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:28:17 -0700, Jay Beattie
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>Do I care if MHLs reduce the number of
>cyclists? No, because there are too many cyclists who get in my way,
>and I like having the road to myself.

Are you serious about this one? This disturbs me a lot.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 10, 3:50 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:28:17 -0700, Jay Beattie
>
> <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> >Do I care if MHLs reduce the number of
> >cyclists? No, because there are too many cyclists who get in my way,
> >and I like having the road to myself.
>
> Are you serious about this one? This disturbs me a lot.

You must have a very stress-free life if this disturbs you at all!
Anyway, it was sort of a joke -- but not entirely. I do like the idea
of having more people on their bikes. I mean I did all that activist
stuff. But, the reality of more bicyclists sometimes sucks because I
have to deal with bicycle traffic on the busy arterial on my way in to
work. I'm in time-trial mode and don't want to deal with bicycle
traffic. There are even riders on my secret routes through the hills
on the way home. It was peaceful not having someone slowing me down or
mowing me down on the little goat trails through the hills. Waaah!
Call the waaahmbulance! -- Jay Beattie.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:28:17 -0700, Jay Beattie
> <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>> Do I care if MHLs reduce the number of
>> cyclists? No, because there are too many cyclists who get in my way,
>> and I like having the road to myself.
>
> Are you serious about this one? This disturbs me a lot.

He is a lawyer, after all.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

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

[Jay Beattie]

On Jul 10, 4:33 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:28:17 -0700, Jay Beattie
> > <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> >> Do I care if MHLs reduce the number of
> >> cyclists? No, because there are too many cyclists who get in my way,
> >> and I like having the road to myself.
>
> > Are you serious about this one? This disturbs me a lot.
>
> He is a lawyer, after all.

Hey, at least I don't ride a recumbent! -- Jay Beattie.