Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.


:-) :-) :-)

Can you believe it's Bill Zaumen saying that? :-)

Krygowski is trying to cover up the fact that Wolfgang has as much of
an anti-helmet agenda as Krygowski does. BTW, if I remember
correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set, I presume
because he was posting from work, so don't expect to find his
rants on the subject in the archives.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski writes:

Michael wrote:


I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
have that helmet on.

And I'm willing to bet you wouldn't. Why? Because the absolutely
_tremendous_ rise in bike helmet use hasn't caused a significant
change in serious head injuries per cyclist. In fact, if anything,
there are more head injuries per cyclist than before.

If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
should be detectable.

There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
which make cycling more dangerous than before. With a large
vehicle, you are far more likely to have you head hit in primary
impact then when the vehicle is small enough that you can see
over it. And the larger size cuts your sight lines considerably.

And that's been going on during the same time period that helmet
use increased.

Much more likely, IMO: all these helmets are producing stories that go
like this: "Wow, dude, my helmet touched the ground!!! It must have
saved my life!!!"

This is typical Krygowksi bull**** - putting words in people's mouths.
In fact, I've never seen him reply to a post in which someone reported
an incident where a helmet might have helped without discounting the
helmet. Not *one* incident whatsoever.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

(Bill Z.):

Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
^
Hi Bill. Still digging? :-}


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

"dgk" wrote in message
...

.. To me, it is likely
that his victory came from the fact that his team made the voting
machines that left us no paper trail to verify. I think they cheated.

Oh geez....Are we going to have to listen to this stupid bull**** for the
next four years? Show some proof or stick it.

Cheto

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:
BTW, if I remember
correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set...

As usual, you're either remembering wrong or inventing things.

Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
silence.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
should be detectable.


There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
which make cycling more dangerous than before.

Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
support it - as usual.

Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in red
light running, and the increased cycling danger.

I think what would suffice for the latter would be data showing an
increase in serious injuries to parts of the body other than the head,
significantly greater than the increase in serious head injuries.

So, Bill: Got data?


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Ken [NY] wrote:

In 1996, Clinton got 49% of the vote,
a plurality, but not a majority. I don't remember anyone saying he had
no mandate to pursue his announced policies.

Do you remember Clinton _claiming_ he had a mandate? If so, you should
give a quote. If not, quit making yourself look foolish.


"When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye have
made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the
fetters."
--Koran, SURA1 47.-MUHAMMAD [XCVI.]


" Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the
priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death. Such evil
must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Ken [NY] wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:41:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
claims:

[Ken NY:]
Sorry, Sir, but I did not send it off into a political thread,
I just followed it, due to my simplistic thinking, I guess. We
commoners are like that.
[fk:]
Bull****, Ken. This thread was about a helmet bill in Canada. You most
certainly did send it off into a political thread. Certainly, you can't
be _ignorant_ of that fact!

[Ken NY:]
Well, I was refering to something a gentleman wrote in another
thread:

That was obvious. You made a fool of yourself by bringing that topic
unbidden into _this_ thread, then pretending you didn't. If you're not
capable of keeping your conversations straight, you should either take
notes or stop posting.

BTW, I note the propensity of hard-ass right wingers to save all their
forgiveness for themselves. What ever happened to personal
responsibility? What ever happened to owning up to ones' mistakes? Are
those are only for other folks?

Now perhaps you should return to the topic of the thread - or better,
some simpler bike-related topic. The simpler the topic, the less
trouble you'll have.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

....stuff deleted
There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
which make cycling more dangerous than before.

Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in red
light running, and the increased cycling danger.

....more deleted

Frank,

You very well know that there is little, if any, such data available.
Having driven in the 60's, however, I can definitely state that once the
majority of drivers attempted to stop for yellow lights, and now the
majority accellerate to enter the intersection before the light changes
from yellow to red. Watch intersections and count the number of folks
lock up their brakes to stop in time and the number will be zero. This
practice was not only common when I started driving, it was pretty much
the norm and you could observe it several times a day.

The overall affect of this on cycling safety is unclear, however. My
belief is that drivers today are much less tolerent, less capable, and
overall, less aware than those of today. This is, IMO, that the driver
today is severely overloaded by the amount of electronic equipment that
claims their attention.

Rick

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:
BTW, if I remember
correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set...

As usual, you're either remembering wrong or inventing things.

See
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=355ca440.54640388%40news.gmd.de&output =gplain
where Wolfgang Strobl said precisely that - that he used the
x-no-archive flag. I don't see why he'd lie about it given that he
was explaining to someone why a search of DejaNews (before Google
bought it) wouldn't work, and seemed to be trying to help that person
out.

Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
silence.

What you should be embarassed by, Krygowski, is your bald-faced lies
and baseless statements like the above when you really don't have
the facts and are too inept to check for yourself. All you had to
do was to search messages in rec.bicycles.soc whose author is Strobl
and with the phrase x-no-archive. It took a couple of minutes and
is not particularly difficult.

But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
how often you do this sort of thing.

Oh, and one other thing - I posted it with the caveat "if I remembered
correctly." It meant what it said. Your statement about "inventing
things" is simply character assassination. You'd fit quite well
in Bush's election campaign - those *******s have the same ethics
you do.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB