THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW 
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:51:11 PM UTC, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:59*am, Andre Jute wrote:

snip

The other major point is that in the States an attitude has grown up in which outright murder by automobile has become socially acceptable.

And you would approach this problem by restricting bicycling?

Don't be silly. And don't try to put silly words in my mouth. There is zero evidence, except in Krygowski's wet dreams of a fascist state in which people do as he tells them to do, that mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists.

This is typical anti-helmet zealot crap. You have no solutions except just to let people die, but you abuse me for wanting to reduce the death toll. You're sounding more like the execrable Krygowski every day, Danno.

What's more, unlike you, I have long since offered a solution to the adverse relationship of automobiles and cyclists on US roads. If you don't remember it it is because you AHZ jerk yourself up any time someone mentions helmets and stuff your ears so as not to hear, and shout abuse so loudly that you don't hear the common sense all around you.

What I suggested was simple, that every State should legislate a one-metre clearance zone around every bicycle, and enforce it. That would put the onus of proof on the driver who hits the cyclist, and soon a change of attitude would follow. Krygowski could work for that, instead of spending all his energy fighting all his (mainly imagined) enemies. You could work for it. But you don't; instead you abuse me for even mentioning helmets. It is this misdirection of energy which makes the AHZ so contemptible.

Andre Jute
My mind is in gear. Is yours?

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:46:34 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:34:12 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:

I didn't send what follows. ...

Oops. That excellent post...

The adjective in the second line made the statement in the first line obvious, Andre. You're wasting bandwidth yet again.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 6, 2:21*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:51:11 PM UTC, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:59*am, Andre Jute wrote:

snip

The other major point is that in the States an attitude has grown up in which outright murder by automobile has become socially acceptable.

And you would approach this problem by restricting bicycling?


I didn't say "reduce"; I said "restrict".

Don't be silly. And don't try to put silly words in my mouth. There is zero evidence, except in Krygowski's wet dreams of a fascist state in which people do as he tells them to do, that mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists.

This is typical anti-helmet zealot crap. You have no solutions except just to let people die, but you abuse me for wanting to reduce the death toll. You're sounding more like the execrable Krygowski every day, Danno.

What's more, unlike you, I have long since offered a solution to the adverse relationship of automobiles and cyclists on US roads. If you don't remember it it is because you AHZ jerk yourself up any time someone mentions helmets and stuff your ears so as not to hear, and shout abuse so loudly that you don't hear the common sense all around you.


Who AHZ?

What I suggested was simple, that every State should legislate a one-metre clearance zone around every bicycle, and enforce it. That would put the onus of proof on the driver who hits the cyclist, and soon a change of attitude would follow.


Good luck with that.

Krygowski could work for that, instead of spending all his energy fighting all his (mainly imagined) enemies. You could work for it. But you don't; instead you abuse me for even mentioning helmets.


I merely questioned THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW.

It is this misdirection of energy which makes the AHZ so contemptible.


Well, I don't use the word "contemptible", but... well, my record
speaks for itself.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:18:27 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per "Tom $herman (-_-)"
":
Try this experiment. Put a foam bicycle hat on a hard surface and whack
it hard with a gloved hand. Then put a Snell M2010 rated moto lid next
to it and whack it hard with a softball bat. See which one is in better
condition afterwards.

But wouldn't a steel pot test even better?

And, why a GLOVED hand? Won't it break if hit with a BARE hand?

--
Cheers,
John B.

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 11:19:29 PM UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:46:34 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:34:12 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:



I didn't send what follows. ...



Oops. That excellent post...



The adjective in the second line made the statement in the first line obvious, Andre. You're wasting bandwidth yet again.



- Frank Krygowski

Poor Franki Shavelegs, reduced to petty sniping from the sidelines.

On 11/6/2012 4:29 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:51:18 -0600, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
" wrote:

On 11/5/2012 5:09 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 21:54:21 -0600, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
" wrote:

On 11/4/2012 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 15:23:15 -0600, "Tom $herman (-_-)"
" wrote:

On 10/29/2012 6:20 PM, Curtis wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote

"It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free
?individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
?constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
?collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled ?in
different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese."

Unfortunate truth, control from the nanny state.

"To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the ability
to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than liberty. "

And that "smacks" of STUPIDITY from those willing to endure tyranny for a
FALSE sense of security.


Nanny state my arse - the goal of the US government is to destroy the
country and turn it into 3rd world status - has been since 12:30 CST on
November 22, 1963. Get back to me in 10 years if you disagree.

Somehow, there appears to be a lack of logic here. Why in the world
would the government want to turn the U.S. into a desperately poor 3rd
world nation. After all, poor = fewer with the ability to pay taxes;
fewer paying taxes = less money in the G'ment coffers for programs
that will generate kick-backs = lower income for Bureaucrats.

If you think the war for US independence ended with Cornwallis
surrendering, you have been played for a fool.

Henry Kissinger let the cat out of the bag when he referred to the
non-elite as "worthless eaters". If you are not a member of the Eight
Families [1] or their close associates, you are worth nothing more than
cattle. A free, democratic, and prosperous society is everything they hate.

[1] The Goldman Sach's, Rockefeller's, Lehman's and Kuhn Loeb's of New
York; the Rothschild's of Paris and London; the Warburg's of Hamburg;
the Lazard's of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seif's of Rome. Together
they control at least $250 trillion in assets.

Do they pay taxes?

Compared to their income, not much. These days they create money for
free, lend it to every government with a private central bank, and let
the taxpayers pay them interest. Biggest financial scam in history by far.

Kennedy was going to have the government issue Treasury Notes directly
(instead of privately issued Federal Reserve Notes), and died in a hail
of bullets (ask G.H.W. Bush what he was doing on Dealey Plaza that day).


I'm interested in this "create money for free" stuff.... Maybe a few
details and I won't have to worry about inflation.

Open up any basic economics textbook. Sheesh.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:21:02 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:51:11 PM UTC, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:59*am, Andre Jute wrote:

snip

The other major point is that in the States an attitude has grown up in which outright murder by automobile has become socially acceptable.

And you would approach this problem by restricting bicycling?

Don't be silly. And don't try to put silly words in my mouth. There is zero evidence, except in Krygowski's wet dreams of a fascist state in which people do as he tells them to do, that mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists.

This is typical anti-helmet zealot crap. You have no solutions except just to let people die, but you abuse me for wanting to reduce the death toll. You're sounding more like the execrable Krygowski every day, Danno.

What's more, unlike you, I have long since offered a solution to the adverse relationship of automobiles and cyclists on US roads. If you don't remember it it is because you AHZ jerk yourself up any time someone mentions helmets and stuff your ears so as not to hear, and shout abuse so loudly that you don't hear the common sense all around you.

What I suggested was simple, that every State should legislate a one-metre clearance zone around every bicycle, and enforce it. That would put the onus of proof on the driver who hits the cyclist, and soon a change of attitude would follow. Krygowski could work for that, instead of spending all his energy fighting all his (mainly imagined) enemies. You could work for it. But you don't; instead you abuse me for even mentioning helmets. It is this misdirection of energy which makes the AHZ so contemptible.


Based on comparative use it would make far more sense to simply ban
bicycles from the highway.

Andre Jute
My mind is in gear. Is yours?

On 11/6/2012 9:28 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
Winter weather is not that bad around
here. It is nothing like Wisconsin or the Midwest.

When did Wisconsin get removed from the Midwest?

Winters in southern Wisconsin have actually been quite mild since mid
1990's - I do remember doing 8 hours of cart and drive-up duty at
grocery hell on the first weekend of February 1996 on a very cold and
windy day.

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-history/stations/msn/msn-tts-1996.gif

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On 11/6/2012 12:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
indeed Liddell Tommi and his Evil Puppeteer, Krygowski, won't even read it.

Send me a copy printed on soft paper on a roll.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On 11/6/2012 5:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:18:27 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per "Tom $herman (-_-)"
":
Try this experiment. Put a foam bicycle hat on a hard surface and whack
it hard with a gloved hand. Then put a Snell M2010 rated moto lid next
to it and whack it hard with a softball bat. See which one is in better
condition afterwards.

But wouldn't a steel pot test even better?

And, why a GLOVED hand? Won't it break if hit with a BARE hand?

What about a bear hand?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7057/6928394406_01fc278fea_z.jpg

Boxers wear gloves to protect the relatively fragile bones in the hand.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!