Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

On Aug 27, 7:37 pm, SMS > wrote:
>
> They may have been claiming that helmet laws
> result in reduced levels of cycling, even though no data is available
> that proves this.

That was spoken from a position of ignorance. An accurate version of
that statement is: there is no data proving this that Steven M.
Scharf knows about. However, there is plenty of such data, even
though he's unaware of it.


>
> This the approach that was successful in my club when the do-gooders
> tried to make helmets compulsory on all rides, rather than letting the
> ride leaders decide (eventually we could no longer obtain insurance
> without a helmet requirement and we were forced into requiring helmets
> on all rides).

There's a good chance that's another statement from ignorance. My
club's insurance does not require helmets. Granted, his club is in a
different state, and perhaps every insurance company licensed in his
state does require helmets, but it's rather unlikely. The League of
American Bicyclists' event insurance is available in every state,
AFAIK, and it does not require helmets.

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 27, 8:51 pm, SMS > wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do with
> > stopping a helmet law, is there?
>
> No, but they think they did! While to most of us they come across as
> rather foolish on Usenet, each could have a totally different persona
> when live in front of policymakers, and they could actually be effective
> lobbyists when the anonymity of Usenet is stripped away.

:-) Anonymity of Usenet? That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who
goes only by SMS!

Of course, many of us know him as Steven M. Scharf, but he does try to
remain anonymous!

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:

> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser >
> wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>> >> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>
>> > Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>> > presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>> > Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>
>> > Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_
>> > is a political issue.
>>
>> > It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>> > perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>> > the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>
>> > How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails
>> > of sacrificed animals?
>>
>> That seems more your line of work.
>
> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
> I make most of my important decisions.
>
> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
> cracking?

Facts.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser >
>> wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_
>>>> is a political issue.
>>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails
>>>> of sacrificed animals?
>>> That seems more your line of work.
>> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
>> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
>> I make most of my important decisions.
>>
>> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
>> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
>> cracking?
>
> Facts.

Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
position?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

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

On Aug 27, 1:18 pm, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>
> just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that people who
> fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet for cycles) cannot
> make a claim against their insurance.Then they can make their choice as
> they see fit,and live by the consequences of their choice.

But what is your definition of a "reasonable precaution"?

It seems to me it should include at least three factors. First, the
danger without the "precaution" must be significant. Otherwise you're
in the position of requiring armor to play hopscotch. Not that the
handwringers wouldn't like that, I suppose...

Second, the "precaution" must be effective. It must actually reduce
the hazard enough to be worthwhile. A pocket full of ping-pong balls
won't keep you from drowning, so it would be silly to mandate it for
boaters.

Third, the "precaution" must do more good than harm. It can't
increase the hazard from other effects more than it decreases the
hazard from its intended effect.

There are probably other qualifications we can think of, but: Bicycle
helmets fail on all three of those I mentioned.

First, and most important, bicycling is NOT a significant risk of
serious head injury. That whole idea is a fiction, developed
specifically to market bike helmets. Neither the total number, nor
the per-hour rate of significant head injury due to bicycling is large
enough to justify helmets. Cycling is roughly as safe as driving or
walking.

Second, bike helmets have simply NOT proven effective. Their
widespread use has not decreased serious head injuries. And this is
not surprising, since they are designed and certified only for
extremely mild impacts, not the sorts of impacts that cause the vast
majority of serious injuries and deaths - rare as those are.

Third, the imposition of helmet laws has been proven to seriously
decrease bicycling, despite claims to the contrary. The same is
probably true for the scaremongering helmet promotion. This does more
harm than good, not only because the helmets are ineffective;
bicycling is a strong positive force for health, and driving people
away from it by law or by fear causes losses in public health.

I've listed citations for all these facts in the past. If anyone
wants them, let me know here and I'll list the citations yet again.

- Frank Krygowski

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser >
>>> wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>>>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>>>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>>>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved,
>>>>> _everything_ is a political issue.
>>>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>>>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>>>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the
>>>>> entrails of sacrificed animals?
>>>> That seems more your line of work.
>>> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
>>> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's
>>> how I make most of my important decisions.
>>>
>>> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
>>> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of
>>> wise- cracking?
>>
>> Facts.
>
> Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
> position?
>

Cute. But content free.

On Aug 28, 12:21 am, Lobby Dosser >
wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
> >>>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
> >>>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
> >>>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
> >>>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
> >>>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved,
> >>>>> _everything_ is a political issue.
> >>>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
> >>>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
> >>>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
> >>>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the
> >>>>> entrails of sacrificed animals?
> >>>> That seems more your line of work.
> >>> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
> >>> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's
> >>> how I make most of my important decisions.
>
> >>> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
> >>> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of
> >>> wise- cracking?
>
> >> Facts.
>
> > Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
> > position?
>
> Cute. But content free.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I need Maalox after that cracker.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2007 17:18:35 GMT, Jim Yanik > said in
> >:
>
>> just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that
>> people who fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet
>> for cycles) cannot make a claim against their insurance.
>
> For some values of reasonable. According to the largest ever study,
> encompassing over a million bike accidents, wearing a helmet is
> associated with a small but significant increase in risk of death
> and a small but statistically insignificant increase in risk of
> injury.
>
> Yes, I did type that correctly, it is *increase* not decrease. So
> arguably insurance companies should be telling people not to wear
> them.

What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports or
emergency room reports or what?

> Actually, of course, it's nothing like that simple. Which is
> probably why the insurers of large cycling bodies like CTC and LAB
> do not make any stipulation in regard to helmets on their group
> rides.
>
> Guy

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Aug 27, 6:30 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article .com>, Woody Brison wrote:
> > This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
> > 5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
> > riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
> > so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
> > energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
> > a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
> > walking.
>
> Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.

OK, I'll bite. How does riding on the sidewalk relate to
bicycle velocity, energy, and impact injury?

In article . com>, Woody Brison wrote:
> On Aug 27, 6:30 am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article .com>, Woody Brison wrote:
>> > This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
>> > 5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
>> > riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
>> > so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
>> > energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
>> > a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
>> > walking.
>>
>> Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.
>
> OK, I'll bite. How does riding on the sidewalk relate to
> bicycle velocity, energy, and impact injury?

When was the last time you saw a post on the roadway (definition as per
IL vehicle code)? The posts are on the sidewalk.