Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

Festivus wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Festivus wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

So you extrapolate an accident with a hard-shell MOTORCYCLE helmet
to a BICYCLE foam hat that has 1/8 the mass and covers a
significantly smaller area of the head? And you expect the foam
bicycle hat to provide similar protection? Sheesh!

m*v^2
-----
2

You do the math. Does it need to supply similar protection? For
the vast majority of accidents, it does not.

And for the vast majority of bicycle accidents, there will be no
serious head injury, lidded or lidless.


The most serious bicycle injury I've personally known of was a
teenager who smashed a side mirror extension with his arm and sliced
open an artery.

The helmet didn't help him at all. Ergo, helmets are useless.

Everyone who eats carrots winds up dead. I say ban 'em!

Suddenly, , blurted out the following:

On Aug 21, 2:49 am, Corky K wrote:
Suddenly, , blurted out the following:

My wife and I recently took a long vacation in Europe. We took our
bikes. We saw more people of all types using bikes of all types than
we have ever seen in any American city (including ones that are famous
for being "bike friendly"). Excepting obvious American bike tourists,
we saw very few helmets. In fact, outside of one or two big cities,
we saw almost no helmets at all.

I lived for many years in Europe. What you saw was not typical. Many, many
people wear helmets there. Not on trips to the store or church or such, but all
of the sport riders wear them, mountain bikers too. Kids are required to wear
them. Your observation is like a statistical study with an N of 1.

Yes, the few helmets we saw were almost entirely on "sport" riders.
That is, people who got out their special "fast" bike, put on their
special tight shorts, their special pretty jersey, their special
shoes, their special gloves, their special sunglasses, and pretended
to ride fast. They had helmets.

You just weren't looking. There are biking clubs all over Europe, not the skinny
assed tricot wearing types, but bicycling hobbyists, weekend warriors who ride
50-60 kilometers on a Sunday, stopping at cafés for a beer or a meal along the
way. People of all ages. Virtually all wear helmets.

The other place I saw them was in Vienna. I'd estimate roughly 25% of
the urban cyclists had helmets.

But in other large cities and dozens of small villages, they simply
were not seen.

You weren't looking. As I said, old women on their way shopping don't wear them.
Pretty much anyone on their way shopping. Most others....yes. People commuting
to work, etc.

Look at pictures online of, say, Amsterdam cyclists.

I used to live not far from Amsterdam. Was there quite often. Actually all over
the Netherlands. Your observation is incorrect outside of those who are going to
the store or a friends house. Riders wear helmets, commuters wear helmets,
shoppers do not.



Somehow, the people who use bicycles the most think of it as a normal
activity. No funny hat necessary. OTOH, we Americans think _we_ know
more about cycling, despite the fact that, as a nation, we do very
little. And we think that since cycling is unusual, it is terribly
dangerous.

No, it is just you who thinks he knows more about cycling.

It's a bit ludicrous.


- Frank Krygowski

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

Corky K wrote:
Suddenly, , blurted out the following:

On Aug 21, 2:49 am, Corky K wrote:
Suddenly, , blurted out the following:

My wife and I recently took a long vacation in Europe. We took our
bikes. We saw more people of all types using bikes of all types
than we have ever seen in any American city (including ones that
are famous for being "bike friendly"). Excepting obvious American
bike tourists, we saw very few helmets. In fact, outside of one
or two big cities, we saw almost no helmets at all.

I lived for many years in Europe. What you saw was not typical.
Many, many people wear helmets there. Not on trips to the store or
church or such, but all of the sport riders wear them, mountain
bikers too. Kids are required to wear them. Your observation is
like a statistical study with an N of 1.

Yes, the few helmets we saw were almost entirely on "sport" riders.
That is, people who got out their special "fast" bike, put on their
special tight shorts, their special pretty jersey, their special
shoes, their special gloves, their special sunglasses, and pretended
to ride fast. They had helmets.

You just weren't looking. There are biking clubs all over Europe, not
the skinny assed tricot wearing types, but bicycling hobbyists,
weekend warriors who ride 50-60 kilometers on a Sunday, stopping at
cafés for a beer or a meal along the way. People of all ages.
Virtually all wear helmets.

The other place I saw them was in Vienna. I'd estimate roughly 25%
of the urban cyclists had helmets.

But in other large cities and dozens of small villages, they simply
were not seen.

You weren't looking. As I said, old women on their way shopping don't
wear them. Pretty much anyone on their way shopping. Most
others....yes. People commuting to work, etc.

Look at pictures online of, say, Amsterdam cyclists.

I used to live not far from Amsterdam. Was there quite often.
Actually all over the Netherlands. Your observation is incorrect
outside of those who are going to the store or a friends house.
Riders wear helmets, commuters wear helmets, shoppers do not.



Somehow, the people who use bicycles the most think of it as a
normal activity. No funny hat necessary. OTOH, we Americans
think _we_ know more about cycling, despite the fact that, as a
nation, we do very little. And we think that since cycling is
unusual, it is terribly dangerous.

No, it is just you who thinks he knows more about cycling.

It's a bit ludicrous.

No, it's a lot hilarious. "Corky Cleans Cocky's Clock!" -- POTY (so far,
anyway).

Bill "who knows more -- someone who visited for a few days or someone who
lived there?" S.

Suddenly, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" , blurted
out the following:

Corky K who? wrote:
Suddenly, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" , blurted
out the following:

Bo Raxo wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:

Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?

Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.

And getting rid of mandatory helmet laws will promote more organ
donation. Toss in the Darwinian aspect and you've got: Win-win!
Please post some citations showing that a thin web of expanded
polystyrene will significantly reduce serious brain trauma in accidents.

Let's do a test. I will hit you in the head with a hammer. Which would you
rather do, wear a bicycle helmet while I do this or not?

[Yawn] That goes under the category of "bump protection". There would
only be a VERY NARROW range of hammer impact energies where the foam hat
would make a significant difference to the internal brain injuries
sustained.

Which is precisely the purpose of a helmet. They aren't meant to stop a truck
travelling 70MPH from doing brain damage when they hit you. They are meant for
the bump that one might receive falling off of their bike. That's the point. And
you are right, it is a very narrow range of injury, but a very important one. Do
you wear gloves when you ride? Same thing. Won't stop a truck.

Or to you believe that foam bicycle hats have magical powers that
protect the wearer's head?

If you get hit by a car, not even several foam coolers on your head will help.
But falling off and hitting your head while riding with and without a helmet is
why people wear helmets. I have a friend who sustained serious head and neck
injuries because he was so concentrated on pumping the peddles with his head
down, that he didn't see the car illegally parked in the bike lane until the
last second. He hit head first. Do you think that a helmet might have helped
him? His doctor definitely does. Don't believe in them? Don't wear them. The
gene pool sorts itself out.

I ride a recumbent, so I am looking ahead when hammering hard.

A whoopie ****in' doo! Care to comment on what his doctor said?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

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

wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:
You got crowded BECAUSE you rode too far right. If you ride far right,
you are encourgaging them to squeeze by. Use more of the lane and that
problem is greatly reduced. Riding further into the lane makes you more
visible, and forces motorists to adjust to you.

Wayne


I believe that making motorists adjust 'to your riding habits' means
you are doing it wrong.

Motorists adjust to other motor vehicles, including those that are going
slower, very much slower (front loaders, those starting out or slowing
to turn, trucks climbing hills, etc.), or stopped (at lights, busses,
delivery vehicles, etc.). Adjusting to bicycle drivers is just part are
the deal.

Wayne

"Bill Sornson" wrote:


WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone over on
purpose?!?

Sheesh...

I think it has to do with the property aspect of the crime and what
can be proven. From the story, it seems like he tried to hit the
first, but thats not so clear for the second.

If Bob throws a beer bottle at Betty and accidentally hits my car
windsheild, it can be attempted assault on her, but I have no claim
since he wasnt intending to hit my car (at least in many places). If
the driver were to claim he was just trying to pay back the rider he
thought kicked his car, it makes the case more difficult.

With attempted assault the case is easier because they can avoid all
that and simply go based on the fact that his actions could have
caused great bodily injury to 2 riders (who werent wearing helmets as
every iteration of the story makes clear).

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

-snip-

Most cyclists would rather not be called "bikers". "Bikers" implies
that whole Wehrmacht look thing that seems to be popular now.

Tell that to my "biker" daughter who looks more like the Silver Power
Ranger than Heinrich Himmler in her motorcycle gear.

Here is the "West Coast Choppers" logo I see all the time:
http://www.stickergirl.com/images/3216.jpg.

Here is the Iron Cross, a service award granted to members of the
Wehrmacht: http://www.feldgrau.com/EKi.jpg.

Notice a resemblance?

And remarkably similar to the cross pateé incorporated in the US Army
weapons qualification badges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons...fication_Badge

Notice the resemblance?

Here is the type of helmet I have seen bikers commonly wearing in recent
years:
http://www.buymotorcyclehelmets.com/assets/images/products/flatblackspike.jpg.

Here is a Wehrmacht helmet (with Waffen SS insigia):
http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/h/helmet-wss-m42-2.jpg.

Notice a resemblance?

And remarkably similar to the current US Army combat helmet.

http://www.weo.com/comprod/helmet_antenna.jpg

Notice the resemblance? Though both manage to omit the pickelhaube
"spike" which was more typical of late nineteenth and early twentieth
century German dress uniform helmets than any thing the wehrmacht ever used.

Indeed, the pickelhaube was the standard US Army dress uniform helmet
from the 1880s through the early years of the 20th century.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images...antry-1899.jpg

The "wehrmacht look" is in the eye of the beholder.

Peace and justice,

On Aug 21, 11:32 am, Festivus wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,

I'm willing to bet that the hair you carried on your noggin as a 20
year old was or would have been a far more effective insulator with a
foam cap on top than without one.

I wore a "foam cap" then too. Never noticed the difference.

Really, I think that's an argument for the sake of argumentation. Sure,
the effect is non-zero, but I'll wager $100 that no one can come up with
a single documented case of heat exhaustion caused by a ventilated helmet.

The effect is more than non-zero; it's dramatic and obvious.

Maybe to you. I only have the my own experience for comparison, but as
long as I'm moving 15mph or so I can't tell the difference at all
(except that I don't get a sunburn). And when I ride in weather below
35 degrees, I still have to wear a nylon head sock and ear coverings -
the helmet doesn't keep nearly enough heat in to keep the ride from
getting downright painful.

Apparently, some people are bothered by heat from helmets, and some
people are not. There can be many reasons for this - for example,
differences in climate. (People in the relatively arid west don't
understand the humid east.) Also, personal physical differences. I
know someone who frequently complains about hot or cold hands and
feet, when I'm perfectly comfortable.

But the fact is, wearing a helmet does bother many people, for reasons
related to heat as well as other reasons. They should be allowed to
make their own choice, and shouldn't get ridiculed by those whose
choice is different.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:


But the fact is, wearing a helmet does bother many people, for reasons
related to heat as well as other reasons. They should be allowed to
make their own choice, and shouldn't get ridiculed by those whose
choice is different.

- Frank Krygowski

Big difference between bothering someone and playing a significant role
in heat stroke.

But I don't have any problem with allowing personal choice in any of
this. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts, whatever - once you hit 18, you
ought to be able to make your own call.

The argument starts to stretch my imagination when claims are made that
helmets offer little or no protection to impact. Perhaps no study can
show definitively that they do, but humans are hard to study precisely
because it's unethical to do the study right. I can't prove they help,
and you can't prove that they don't, for precisely the same reason, so
I'll continue to assume common sense applies.

Wear one if you think they help. Mandate them for minors. Live with
your decisions and the consequences. At least with bikes, no one else
is likely to be the victim of your poor choices.

On Aug 21, 12:26 pm, Corky K wrote:
Suddenly, , blurted out the following:



On Aug 21, 2:49 am, Corky K wrote:
Suddenly, , blurted out the following:

My wife and I recently took a long vacation in Europe. We took our
bikes. We saw more people of all types using bikes of all types than
we have ever seen in any American city (including ones that are famous
for being "bike friendly"). Excepting obvious American bike tourists,
we saw very few helmets. In fact, outside of one or two big cities,
we saw almost no helmets at all.

I lived for many years in Europe. What you saw was not typical. Many, many
people wear helmets there. Not on trips to the store or church or such, but all
of the sport riders wear them, mountain bikers too. Kids are required to wear
them. Your observation is like a statistical study with an N of 1.

Yes, the few helmets we saw were almost entirely on "sport" riders.
That is, people who got out their special "fast" bike, put on their
special tight shorts, their special pretty jersey, their special
shoes, their special gloves, their special sunglasses, and pretended
to ride fast. They had helmets.

You just weren't looking. There are biking clubs all over Europe, not the skinny
assed tricot wearing types, but bicycling hobbyists, weekend warriors who ride
50-60 kilometers on a Sunday, stopping at cafés for a beer or a meal along the
way. People of all ages. Virtually all wear helmets.

The other place I saw them was in Vienna. I'd estimate roughly 25% of
the urban cyclists had helmets.

But in other large cities and dozens of small villages, they simply
were not seen.

You weren't looking. As I said, old women on their way shopping don't wear them.
Pretty much anyone on their way shopping. Most others....yes. People commuting
to work, etc.

Look at pictures online of, say, Amsterdam cyclists.

I used to live not far from Amsterdam. Was there quite often. Actually all over
the Netherlands. Your observation is incorrect outside of those who are going to
the store or a friends house. Riders wear helmets, commuters wear helmets,
shoppers do not.

Here's a site with lots of photos of Amsterdam cyclists:
http://www.domela.com/photos_people/...eview_2006.pdf

There is one guy with a helmet - the overweight guy with the racing
bike at the bottom.

This is pretty much the way I saw it in Krakow, Lublin, Saltzburg,
Parma, Verona, Innsbruck, etc etc. - and countless tiny villages. I
saw many commuters, BTW - ladies riding in dresses and heels,
gentlemen riding in suits and sportcoats. I don't recall any of the
commuters wearing helmets.

Again, I don't doubt that sporty club cyclists wear helmets. One odd
human characteristic is a compulsion to wear special hats for special
activities, and the foam bike helmet has been successfully marketed as
"the" special hat for club cyclists.

But, as in America, the vast majority of European cyclists are not
club cyclists. Unlike America, the vast majority of cyclists seem to
regard riding a bicycle as simple, practical transportation, a normal
part of life, not something requiring special clothes. And the vast
majority of European cyclists do not wear helmets, based on what I
saw.

BTW, according to this paper
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
or http://tinyurl.com/2zgbng
only 2.4% of Paris cyclists wore helmets in 1998.

- Frank Krygowski