fatal hit & run...

raamman wrote:

oh Tom, your farts make more sense than you do. a few ounces won't
protect-

Yes, this is why condoms are useless.

Tom Kunich wrote:

For accidents in which your head bangs against something hard enough to be
painful but not hard enough to do any major damage a helmet is fine.


This reads as though you are you saying that a helmet protects your head
in minor crashes, while offering no protection at all in major crashes.

To me, that's justification enough to wear a helmet.

But you must realize that you cannot depend on a couple of ounces of plastic
foam to protect you from any real damage. You must stay constantly vigilant
and careful to really protect yourself.

These are not mutually exclusive options.

If your ultimate point is that you should not be legally required to
wear a helmet, we are in agreement. Probably for different reasons. I'm
generally against anti-stupidity legislation.

"raamman" wrote in message
...

oh Tom, your farts make more sense than you do. a few ounces won't
protect- so you think they should be heavier, much much heavier to
protect, like an suv protects it's driver better in a rollover,
because it's heavier.... You ? As Safety Director ? what fool
promoted you to such a position that you can espose such garbage
today ? clearly, any certification, diploma or whatever was likely
from a sage institution one might find on Grenada, if it simply wasn't
just one you threw on your application,and no one checked, or maybe
you found someone elses in a dumpster, you crossed your name out and
scratched in yours.mispelled, more likely. yep, don't bother with
seatbelts cause they'll prevent you from being thrown clear, go ahead
and fart your way along you proverbial dumbass, I pronounce you King !

I love quoting people like you. Although if there was any truth at all in
the "safety" part of "safety helmet" it would only require some relatively
simple math to explain that.

Yet you are unable to do even that. And instead think that making foul
assertions will somehow prove your point.

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:

For accidents in which your head bangs against something hard enough to
be painful but not hard enough to do any major damage a helmet is fine.


This reads as though you are you saying that a helmet protects your head
in minor crashes, while offering no protection at all in major crashes.

To me, that's justification enough to wear a helmet.

As for me as well.

But you must realize that you cannot depend on a couple of ounces of
plastic foam to protect you from any real damage. You must stay
constantly vigilant and careful to really protect yourself.

These are not mutually exclusive options.

They are if you believe a helmet is going to protect you in a serious
accident and stop using your brain and rely on a peice of plastic. And let's
remember that from before helmets until now the rates of head injuries to
cyclists haven't changed in any manner attributable to helmets.

If your ultimate point is that you should not be legally required to wear
a helmet, we are in agreement. Probably for different reasons. I'm
generally against anti-stupidity legislation.

It's more than that. Read the postings of people like "Anton Berlin",
"raamman" and the like. These people treat helmets as a religious experience
and literally will tell any lie to get people to use them. And these lies
convince people that helmets are 1000 times more effective than they are.

On Sep 3, 6:14*am, "William R. Mattil" wrote:
Anton Berlin wrote:
*. You must stay constantly vigilant
and careful to really protect yourself.

Kunich, you ignorant misguided ****,

1. *Your fat ass photo on facebook shows you wearing a helmet.

2. *You're truly (on a universal scale) a Grand Moron

3. *I doubt you ride a bike enough to know or even fathom all of the
possible ways that 'vigilence' is a ridiculous notion once gravity and
other forces take over.

4. *I honestly don't know how you live with yourself but can certainly
see that others wouldn't want to live with you. *I doubt you'd even be
able to go down to the Greyhound station and pick up some human refuse
that wouldn't either run from your apt screaming in insanity a few
hours later or just wait long enough to kill you in your sleep and
doing us all a favor.

Just a few months ago I had hardly an idea in the world that you
existed. *I am now convinced that you're the biggest dick weed douche
bag **** face in the history of mankind. *The kind of boorish baboon
that Rod Serling used to make episodes about. *I've seen you in many
of those but you're worse than any single one. * You're all of them
put together and then some.

Damn I really wish you'd quit sugar coating this and tell us all how you
really feel.

The Kunty Klub is getting hyper-competitive. You can't just call him
a douche bag, now it's "the biggest dick weed douche
bag **** face in the history of mankind". Slow typists like me are
off the back. There's no way I can keep up with a blistering pace like
that.
-Paul

ps to Kunty- some years ago a guy ahead of me in a pace line touched
wheels with the rider in front of him and crashed. There was a loud
THUNK! as his helmet hit the road, but he was uninjured. That made a
believer out of me.

On Sep 2, 11:47*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
*"Tom Kunich" wrote:
"raamman" wrote in message

to make a real farce out of all this.....now they are trying to float
the idea that the cyclist grabbed the steering wheel and drove himself
into oblivion...dosen't quite explain on how he managed to work the
accelerator, but I'm sure our good police services will be able to
come up with a theory on that too.

Any bets that the "official" turns out to be the victim in this death? In
the end he will have been merely defending himself from a vicious cyclist
intent on doing him harm for simply using the same streets.

There is apparently considerable video footage of this incident. I
decline to figure out what happened until I know more.

Your reticence is reasonable. However, the driver
always had the chance to take his foot off the
accelerator. Unless the cyclist had a knife or a handgun
(in Canada?!) whatever fears he may have had, no
matter how much aggression provoked them, probably
don't rise to the level of justifying the use of a deadly weapon.
(2000 pounds of metal is a deadly weapon.)

I'd rather get punched in the head than wake up
knowing I'd killed somebody. Some people don't
agree. They shouldn't have driver's licenses.

Ben

In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:47*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
*"Tom Kunich" wrote:
"raamman" wrote in message

to make a real farce out of all this.....now they are trying to float
the idea that the cyclist grabbed the steering wheel and drove himself
into oblivion...dosen't quite explain on how he managed to work the
accelerator, but I'm sure our good police services will be able to
come up with a theory on that too.

Any bets that the "official" turns out to be the victim in this death? In
the end he will have been merely defending himself from a vicious cyclist
intent on doing him harm for simply using the same streets.

There is apparently considerable video footage of this incident. I
decline to figure out what happened until I know more.

Your reticence is reasonable. However, the driver
always had the chance to take his foot off the
accelerator. Unless the cyclist had a knife or a handgun
(in Canada?!) whatever fears he may have had, no
matter how much aggression provoked them, probably
don't rise to the level of justifying the use of a deadly weapon.
(2000 pounds of metal is a deadly weapon.)

I'd rather get punched in the head than wake up
knowing I'd killed somebody. Some people don't
agree. They shouldn't have driver's licenses.

I would only say two things: the converse is the cyclist always had the
chance to let go, and more importantly, fists are pretty darned
dangerous. If someone started to swing fists at me, I would not be
hanging around to give them the opportunity to connect. I would flee or
fight, usually in that order.

I'll continue to be reticent, though. The Canadian justice system is a
bit different from the US system, in that preliminary investigations and
the recommendation of charges are almost always done by the police
rather than the Crown Prosecutor (equivalent to the District Attorney).
This, along with the fact that Crown Prosecutors are not elected, seems
to reduce the politicization of the decision to press charges*.

That's my roundabout way of saying that you arguably see fewer
showboating indictments in Canada, which is not to say we don't have our
share of acquittals and wrongful convictions (David Milgard,
notoriously).

To be blunt: I put some stock in the fact that the police recommended
charges. It's arguably a pretty meaningful indicator of the amount of
trouble the driver is in.

*I think the best part is that press conferences where CPs (DAs) stand
up and, more or less, smear the name and reputation of the defendant du
jour in advance of any conviction are pretty near to zero.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Paul G. wrote:
The Kunty Klub is getting hyper-competitive. You can't just call him
a douche bag, now it's "the biggest dick weed douche
bag **** face in the history of mankind". Slow typists like me are
off the back. There's no way I can keep up with a blistering pace like
that.

You need to get on a program.