|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
I can't stand whiners feeling sorry for themselves in public, and even less when, like Franki-boy, they've brought all that rejection down on themselves by trying to bully others. That this blustering thug preposterously feels that cycling owes him something is a perfect explanation of why cycling can't get a good grasp on public approval in the States: too many of its advocates are hectoring bullies.
Personally, I think Scharfie is a far, far, far more effective spokesman for bicycling than Negative-Effect Krygowski. And Franki-boy's automatic knock every time Scharfie's name is mentioned is one more reason Krygowski puts more people off cycling that he enthuses for cycling. Frank Krygowski is the perfect embodiment of the misinterpretation of Margaret Thatcher's remark that "There is no such thing as society": this creep thinks he's the only one who should have a voice. There's a simple way to prove me wrong, Franki-boy. Ask Scharfie, publicly, here on the newsgroup, to give you a few tips about the successful bicycle programs in Palo Alto, where he is mayor -- and discuss them in an open-minded, humble attitude of willingness to learn something. Snowball's hope in hell! Andre Jute Smilin' through On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 2:31:00 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/15/2019 7:08 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:21:11 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/15/2019 12:27 PM, jbeattie wrote: From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries. That's certainly true. Nobody here has ever claimed that they don't reduce abrasions, cuts and perhaps some other minor injuries. On the other hand, there's been no decrease in bicyclists' concussions since bike helmets became widely used; in fact, there's been a massive increase. The MIPS bandwagon is a direct result of that demonstrable failure. (Not that I expect MIPS to cause any huge improvement.) Also, there's no obvious evidence that bike helmets really save lives. As Tom has demonstrated, percentage wise, cycling fatalities have not dropped any faster than pedestrian fatalities. That's also true for the subset of fatalities caused by traumatic brain injuries. (And cycling has always had fewer TBI fatalities, and fewer per mile traveled, than pedestrian travel. There are something like 325 bike fatalities per year attributed to TBI, but over 1800 ped TBI fatalities.) So while helmets may prevent or reduce certain minor injuries, they're not effective against the ones they have been promoted for. If they were made to meet FDA standards for proven effectiveness, they'd be taken off the market! Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice. Policy in Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland, which by size has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US, and yet Oregon does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts have been turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative committee meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work associated with supporting or opposing legislation. Ohio does not have a MHL for either adults or for kids. I did that hard work of opposing legislation via letters and appearing at a legislative committee hearing. It worked. Your counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause... On the contrary, many of the facts I presented in opposition to MHLs were things I learned in part because of discussions here. nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual patient outcomes and not population studies. They see a massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have helped. Any clue why they yell about helmets only for the 1.5% - 2% of such injuries that are related to bicycling, but not for the 99% that are related to activities like motoring, pedestrian travel, descending stairs, climbing ladders, walking around the home? Bicycling has always been a very minor source of brain trauma. It doesn't even make the unbiased lists of causes; it's just too small a percentage of the problem. Yet bicyclists are saddled with laws, with dishonest fear mongering, with endless helmet promotions, and with insults if they ride without helmets. It's a sign of the times that those who decide based on data are attacked by those who are overconfident know-nothings. Saddled with laws? You mean the vehicle code? I meant saddled with helmet laws. Sorry for omitting the obvious word. The safety regulations for bicycles are so minimal as to be nearly non-existent. No tests. No license. No registration and no safety equipment -- except some US states have mandatory helmet laws for kids and a few cities have MHLs for all. You're right that it's not the world's biggest outrage. But it is something that matters to me personally, for several reasons. One is the abuse I've personally experienced for choosing to almost always omit the bike helmet. Another is the detrimental effect on cycling as a whole - because it should be obvious that "dangerizing" cycling is bad. But perhaps the main reason is the blatant, calculated, irrational dishonesty of the entire helmet scam and its astonishing success. It's like the election of Trump on a micro scale - say anything that will get your bucks (or your vote) no matter how blatantly stupid; sling insults at anyone who disagrees; portray tiny risks as national emergencies; prey on fear; spread money around to influence propaganda; declare proven victory in the face of obvious failure. And there's my deep disappointment that people who should be my allies have bought into all the above, and like Trump's 35%, are so absolutely convinced of their "truth" that they can't even be persuaded to check their own beliefs for accuracy. If I didn't love bicycling as much as I do, I suppose it wouldn't matter much to me. But I do love it, I think it's good for society, and I hate this nonsense discouragement that helmet promoters have succeeding in attaching to this beneficial activity. Again, it's just weird. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:32:49 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
I can't stand whiners feeling sorry for themselves in public, and even less when, like Franki-boy, they've brought all that rejection down on themselves by trying to bully others. That this blustering thug preposterously feels that cycling owes him something is a perfect explanation of why cycling can't get a good grasp on public approval in the States: too many of its advocates are hectoring bullies. Personally, I think Scharfie is a far, far, far more effective spokesman for bicycling than Negative-Effect Krygowski. And Franki-boy's automatic knock every time Scharfie's name is mentioned is one more reason Krygowski puts more people off cycling that he enthuses for cycling. Frank Krygowski is the perfect embodiment of the misinterpretation of Margaret Thatcher's remark that "There is no such thing as society": this creep thinks he's the only one who should have a voice. There's a simple way to prove me wrong, Franki-boy. Ask Scharfie, publicly, here on the newsgroup, to give you a few tips about the successful bicycle programs in Palo Alto, where he is mayor -- and discuss them in an open-minded, humble attitude of willingness to learn something. SMS is the mayor of Cupertino, a few million dollars south of Palo Alto. -- Jay Beattie |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On 16/2/19 4:27 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:19:00 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:39:56 +1100, James wrote: A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91). They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death. They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike. How can both studies be correct? Any paper bsed on Australian data can only show corelation and not causation. The quacks screamed for MHL but failed to collect any data that enabled them to show that helmets were the reason for the reduction in cycling fatalities. I've always enjoyed throwing that factoid in the face of any doctor that sprouts the MHL bleat. In any case, medical professionals are responsible for far more fatalities in Australia each year. A recent article stated you'd be lucky to survive 6 months after surgery in Australia. From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries. Yet the second study I posted a link to, if you examine the numbers, shows that the number of cyclists with a head injury of any kind, from either group, is very close to 30%. That means either the helmet wearers are taking more risks and are still as likely to hurt their head, or the helmet isn't doing much of anything. Perhaps extra risk taking by those who chose to wear a helmet is the reason. I guess forcing people who would not volunteer to wear a helmet, may either stop them from cycling or make them a fraction less likely to hurt their head, or make them take similar risks to the voluntary helmet wearers and they are back to 30% risk of a head injury ;-) -- JS |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:32:47 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote: Ask Scharfie, publicly, here on the newsgroup, to give you a few tips about the successful bicycle programs in Palo Alto, where he is mayor ... He's the mayor of Cupertino CA, not Palo Alto: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/city-council/city-council-members/mayor-steven-scharf -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
Thanks Jay, thanks Jeff. Just checking to see if anyone is awake. Without you guys, I'd be wrong twice a day.
My suggestion still stands. Andre Jute Amazing grace On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 4:59:00 AM UTC, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:32:49 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: I can't stand whiners feeling sorry for themselves in public, and even less when, like Franki-boy, they've brought all that rejection down on themselves by trying to bully others. That this blustering thug preposterously feels that cycling owes him something is a perfect explanation of why cycling can't get a good grasp on public approval in the States: too many of its advocates are hectoring bullies. Personally, I think Scharfie is a far, far, far more effective spokesman for bicycling than Negative-Effect Krygowski. And Franki-boy's automatic knock every time Scharfie's name is mentioned is one more reason Krygowski puts more people off cycling that he enthuses for cycling. Frank Krygowski is the perfect embodiment of the misinterpretation of Margaret Thatcher's remark that "There is no such thing as society": this creep thinks he's the only one who should have a voice. There's a simple way to prove me wrong, Franki-boy. Ask Scharfie, publicly, here on the newsgroup, to give you a few tips about the successful bicycle programs in Palo Alto, where he is mayor -- and discuss them in an open-minded, humble attitude of willingness to learn something. SMS is the mayor of Cupertino, a few million dollars south of Palo Alto. -- Jay Beattie |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 03:46:55 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:33:42 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote: A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91). They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death. They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike. "In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to increased helmet use and not other factors." https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.* 14% wore a helmet. 35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.* 34% of non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.* There was no difference in mortality (1% for both groups). https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite How can both studies be correct? They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely, blatant lying. Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less convenient, I want to take it up"?? To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those who do not buy into the helmet propaganda. For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine. https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/ Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for riding just as everyone rode until about 1975. The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in the world, but it's depressing. -- - Frank Krygowski I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet. Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot. And equally, I have been involved in two crashes with broke bones, once my pelvis and once with only a broken rib. In neither case were there any marks on my helmet that indicated that it had touched the ground. -- Cheers, John B. You need a bigger helmet :-) Nope, from the injuries I probably need some sort of body armor. See: https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/...y-armour-suits -- Cheers, John B. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 5:36:56 AM UTC, James wrote:
Yet the second study I posted a link to, if you examine the numbers, shows that the number of cyclists with a head injury of any kind, from either group, is very close to 30%. That means either the helmet wearers are taking more risks and are still as likely to hurt their head, or the helmet isn't doing much of anything. An inconclusive study would suggest to me that it was honestly done. Perhaps extra risk taking by those who chose to wear a helmet is the reason. I guess forcing people who would not volunteer to wear a helmet, may either stop them from cycling or make them a fraction less likely to hurt their head, or make them take similar risks to the voluntary helmet wearers and they are back to 30% risk of a head injury ;-) Considering the size of the existing studies (which by themselves makes such studies suspect and confusing), and the 3000+ respondents you would need for a proper study with control groups, and the likely cost, I'll take a modest bet on "We won't know in our lifetime." Andre Jute Can't say fairer than that, guv |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 21:30:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/15/2019 7:08 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:21:11 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/15/2019 12:27 PM, jbeattie wrote: From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries. That's certainly true. Nobody here has ever claimed that they don't reduce abrasions, cuts and perhaps some other minor injuries. On the other hand, there's been no decrease in bicyclists' concussions since bike helmets became widely used; in fact, there's been a massive increase. The MIPS bandwagon is a direct result of that demonstrable failure. (Not that I expect MIPS to cause any huge improvement.) Also, there's no obvious evidence that bike helmets really save lives. As Tom has demonstrated, percentage wise, cycling fatalities have not dropped any faster than pedestrian fatalities. That's also true for the subset of fatalities caused by traumatic brain injuries. (And cycling has always had fewer TBI fatalities, and fewer per mile traveled, than pedestrian travel. There are something like 325 bike fatalities per year attributed to TBI, but over 1800 ped TBI fatalities.) So while helmets may prevent or reduce certain minor injuries, they're not effective against the ones they have been promoted for. If they were made to meet FDA standards for proven effectiveness, they'd be taken off the market! Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice. Policy in Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland, which by size has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US, and yet Oregon does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts have been turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative committee meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work associated with supporting or opposing legislation. Ohio does not have a MHL for either adults or for kids. I did that hard work of opposing legislation via letters and appearing at a legislative committee hearing. It worked. Your counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause... On the contrary, many of the facts I presented in opposition to MHLs were things I learned in part because of discussions here. nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual patient outcomes and not population studies. They see a massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have helped. Any clue why they yell about helmets only for the 1.5% - 2% of such injuries that are related to bicycling, but not for the 99% that are related to activities like motoring, pedestrian travel, descending stairs, climbing ladders, walking around the home? Bicycling has always been a very minor source of brain trauma. It doesn't even make the unbiased lists of causes; it's just too small a percentage of the problem. Yet bicyclists are saddled with laws, with dishonest fear mongering, with endless helmet promotions, and with insults if they ride without helmets. It's a sign of the times that those who decide based on data are attacked by those who are overconfident know-nothings. Saddled with laws? You mean the vehicle code? I meant saddled with helmet laws. Sorry for omitting the obvious word. The safety regulations for bicycles are so minimal as to be nearly non-existent. No tests. No license. No registration and no safety equipment -- except some US states have mandatory helmet laws for kids and a few cities have MHLs for all. You're right that it's not the world's biggest outrage. But it is something that matters to me personally, for several reasons. One is the abuse I've personally experienced for choosing to almost always omit the bike helmet. Another is the detrimental effect on cycling as a whole - because it should be obvious that "dangerizing" cycling is bad. But perhaps the main reason is the blatant, calculated, irrational dishonesty of the entire helmet scam and its astonishing success. It's like the election of Trump on a micro scale - say anything that will get your bucks (or your vote) no matter how blatantly stupid; sling insults at anyone who disagrees; portray tiny risks as national emergencies; prey on fear; spread money around to influence propaganda; declare proven victory in the face of obvious failure. And there's my deep disappointment that people who should be my allies have bought into all the above, and like Trump's 35%, are so absolutely convinced of their "truth" that they can't even be persuaded to check their own beliefs for accuracy. If I didn't love bicycling as much as I do, I suppose it wouldn't matter much to me. But I do love it, I think it's good for society, and I hate this nonsense discouragement that helmet promoters have succeeding in attaching to this beneficial activity. Again, it's just weird. Over here a helmet is pretty much the mark of a recreational rider, Black shorts, colorful jersey and a color coordinated helmet. The folks that ride for transportation wear their regular clothes and usually ride a "girl's bike". I seem them every morning pedaling down the road to get the days' groceries. The recreational riders, of course wouldn't be caught dead without their uniform... how would anyone know that they were the elite if they didn't dress the part? -- Cheers, John B. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:36:50 +1100, James
wrote: On 16/2/19 4:27 am, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:19:00 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:39:56 +1100, James wrote: A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91). They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death. They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike. How can both studies be correct? Any paper bsed on Australian data can only show corelation and not causation. The quacks screamed for MHL but failed to collect any data that enabled them to show that helmets were the reason for the reduction in cycling fatalities. I've always enjoyed throwing that factoid in the face of any doctor that sprouts the MHL bleat. In any case, medical professionals are responsible for far more fatalities in Australia each year. A recent article stated you'd be lucky to survive 6 months after surgery in Australia. From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries. Yet the second study I posted a link to, if you examine the numbers, shows that the number of cyclists with a head injury of any kind, from either group, is very close to 30%. That means either the helmet wearers are taking more risks and are still as likely to hurt their head, or the helmet isn't doing much of anything. Perhaps extra risk taking by those who chose to wear a helmet is the reason. I guess forcing people who would not volunteer to wear a helmet, may either stop them from cycling or make them a fraction less likely to hurt their head, or make them take similar risks to the voluntary helmet wearers and they are back to 30% risk of a head injury ;-) http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com...d-helmets.html "in the decade that was the 1950s, 8 pro riders were killed while racing. In the ten years that followed, the 1960s, 4 lost their lives; another 4 during the 1970s, and 5 in the 1980s. 3 died in pro races in the 1990s. However, in the first decade of the New Millennium, the 2000s, 10 professional cyclists died during completion. Two have died already in this decade when we are only half way through the second year. What happened? Helmets were made mandatory in 2003 to protect riders." -- Cheers, John B. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:27:26 -0800, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:19:00 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:39:56 +1100, James wrote: A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91). They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death. They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike. How can both studies be correct? Any paper bsed on Australian data can only show corelation and not causation. The quacks screamed for MHL but failed to collect any data that enabled them to show that helmets were the reason for the reduction in cycling fatalities. I've always enjoyed throwing that factoid in the face of any doctor that sprouts the MHL bleat. In any case, medical professionals are responsible for far more fatalities in Australia each year. A recent article stated you'd be lucky to survive 6 months after surgery in Australia. From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries. Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice. Policy in Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland, which by size has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US, and yet Oregon does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts have been turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative committee meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work associated with supporting or opposing legislation. There was no such chance, the quackery collective demanded it hard and fast and we had it despite clearly pointing out the lack of evidence. Your counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause, nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual patient outcomes and not population studies. Wrong, the big Phama does population studies and uses the data they generate to wage a corrupt PR program on the quackery, who line up for the trinkets and other promo stuff. Suppossedly they are not allowed to offer"rewards" to the quackery, but all you need to do is look around and quacks office to see the "gimmicks" all promoting big pharma products. One of my gigs was to support the Australian Medical Major register who earned big bickies selling the names and addresses to big pharma promo campaigns. This included a significant section to deal with complaints from quacks who didn't get their trinket. Thed joke at the time was the ENT speciallist who didn't get a free speculum like his gyno mate next door. They see a massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have helped. No, they have been taught that mantra and follow it if they want to obtain their registration. Trainee doctors are assessed on their ability to see a patient, assess them and write a prescription all within 20 mintes. Woe betide them if they tke longer, even after they are registered and practising. I don't want a MHL, but every time I hear the complaining and the level of upset it causes, it reminds me of a patient dying of heart failure who is complaining about an unsightly mole. Shrug, you have to die of something and failure to accept that that is your lot is just going to lave your family poor and destitute as the quacks as so log as you have money, there are plenty of quacks who wll sell you some magic pill. There are so many other problems we should be addressing, mostly unrelated bicycles and helmets. But that doesn't mean we should drop the guard on that area. Haven't you noticed that the arsehole never give up their chance to rip the general populaton off. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mandatory treadmill helmet laws soon to be announced.. | James[_8_] | Techniques | 2 | November 6th 14 11:57 AM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Social Issues | 310 | June 23rd 05 07:56 AM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Racing | 17 | April 27th 05 04:34 PM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | UK | 14 | April 26th 05 10:54 AM |
No mandatory helmet law in Switzerland... for now. | caracol40 | General | 0 | December 21st 04 11:58 AM |