Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

On 27 Aug 2007 17:18:35 GMT, Jim Yanik said in
:

just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that people who
fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet for cycles) cannot
make a claim against their insurance.

For some values of reasonable. According to the largest ever study,
encompassing over a million bike accidents, wearing a helmet is
associated with a small but significant increase in risk of death
and a small but statistically insignificant increase in risk of
injury.

Yes, I did type that correctly, it is *increase* not decrease. So
arguably insurance companies should be telling people not to wear
them.

Actually, of course, it's nothing like that simple. Which is
probably why the insurers of large cycling bodies like CTC and LAB
do not make any stipulation in regard to helmets on their group
rides.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
All the Ships at S" said in
om:

Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
you, then.

Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and they
want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real great Satan.

Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.

PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.

Yes, I'm British, but no I'm not... whoever that was.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Aug 27, 9:05 am, wrote:
... Tens
of thousands of people are killed due to falls while just walking
around their own homes.

Woody Brison wrote:
Well, that makes me scratch my head. Whoa! I scratched
my head! Flesh eating bacteria!!!

At some point we have to find a way to rely on good old
unvarnished American natural sunshiny innocent Common
Sense. I just don't see any other way around it.


There are more bicycles in the world than cars and they are being
produced faster. Cycling does make (common) sense!

\\paul

~

629 posts th this thread so far. Will it make a 1,000?

~

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:04:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
said in
fOmAi.5560$yv3.1687@trndny01:

Maybe, but we've also provided good quality and persuasive
information for the larger number of politicians who did not
already know.

Dream On!

Check Hansard for the United Kingdom parliament, 23 April 2004.
Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, defeated.

And?

You will discover that people advancing the kinds of arguments that
Frank and I advance, were able to successfully prevent the passage
of a helmet law.

Proof?

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:41:17 -0700, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and
All the Ships at S" said in
om:

Oh, wait, I see you are using Gurgle Gropes. There is no hope for
you, then.

Not as long as Terrornews is my only real hope for a provider and they
want a credit card for some damn fee. Visa/MC is the real great Satan.

Heh! I use news.individual.net, they filter most of the spam and
are pretty good, very rarely get service failures.

PS Am I to understand you're Biritish, or is that where you hide?
Maybe you are DeSeRt BoB.

Yes, I'm British,

Then eventually you WILL have helmets. Nanny wouldn't have it any other
way. And mandatory sun glasses and sun screen on days when the sun
shines. And classes on the save use of a bicycle. And a Licence to buy
one. And insurance. And road tax. And ...

Oh, you weren't involved in the Pedal-By were you?

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:06:14 GMT, Lobby Dosser
said in
qPmAi.5561$yv3.4598@trndny01:

So you say, but as it turns out it's people like Frank and I who
have successfully opposed helmet laws,
Really? I doubt it.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Martlew_bill
And?

And then stop asserting that the approach which worked, doesn't
work.

What proof is there that it did work?

wrote:

On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser
wrote:


If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political Issue.
Everywhere. Deal with it.

Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and presentation
of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws. Why? Because
they are a political issue.

Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_ is
a political issue.

It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of the
most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.

How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails of
sacrificed animals?

That seems more your line of work.

"Bill Sornson" wrote:

Brent P wrote:
In article , SMS wrote:
Woody Brison wrote:

snip

Note that while they test the helmets with a 14 mph
collision, and it's supposed to exhibit a certain shock
protection, it will reduce shock in a 28 mph collision. The
range doesn't cut off sharp, it decreases gradually.

This is true. Also, what many AHZ's

Who is trying to ban bicycle helmets? Nobody that I've noticed.

"I am against helmets on all grounds" -- Brent P

apparently don't understand
(actually they do understand it but they pretend not to) is that a
30 mph collision does not usually result in a 30 mph head impact. By
the time the cyclist's head impacts something, the rate of impact is
greatly reduced by decelleration (sliding against the road, etc.).

Which is part of why bicycling mishaps rarely result in more than
minor injuries foam hat worn or not.

Spoken like someone whose head has bounced off the pavement numerous
times.




Without a helmet.

Lobby Dosser wrote:

You will discover that people advancing the kinds of arguments that
Frank and I advance, were able to successfully prevent the passage
of a helmet law.

Proof?

It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the laws
were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of what they
said.

The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was at
these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
Usenet in the helmet wars.

If I had to guess, they were probably presenting real data about how low
the accident rate for cyclists actually is, and how unnecessary a
compulsory law actually is. They may have been claiming that helmet laws
result in reduced levels of cycling, even though no data is available
that proves this.

This the approach that was successful in my club when the do-gooders
tried to make helmets compulsory on all rides, rather than letting the
ride leaders decide (eventually we could no longer obtain insurance
without a helmet requirement and we were forced into requiring helmets
on all rides).

It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
status affect ER visits, either one way or another.