Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 9:25:04 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 5:15:03 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2019 8:21 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:21:50 AM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
I just got an advertisement from Trek in which they now claim that the latest Wavecell has not 28 times but 48 times the protection for your head than normal foam.

I wonder if this is advertising BS or an actual improvement of the cell shape design. Since they are manufactured using a 3-D printing technology it is very simple for them to make improvements to the design.

At 28 times the protection I wouldn't have had a concussion in the first place so it is actually something to think about. I am paying about $400 a month for medication and in a constant worry that I will grow used to the medication and its effectiveness will fail. I already discovered that if I take these Saw Palmetto pills for enlarged prostate that it makes you pass the medication out more rapidly that you're supposed to and I start having micro-seizures.

I can't take any larger doses so that is always a problem.

I absolutely do not believe that a helmet can save your life and we've discussed this many times before. But I do believe that it can make the life you wouldn't have lost more livable.

F*cking hell another silly helmet thread. Well it keeps Frank and John B busy.......

Could you not tell the subject from the subject header? Sheesh!

If you don't want to read them, don't read them, Lou! What could be simpler?


--
- Frank Krygowski

I can do that as you can try not to respond to every helmet post. It took you less than 30 min for your first respond to the original post and after that another 8 posts of your usual same old same old. Do you have an algorithm running in the background scanning the word helmet and get a notification on you smartphone? Hey you are talking to us we can think for ourselves.. What is that obsession of yours about helmets? You don't wear one? OK. No one is forcing you. Have a nice day.

Lou

I'm in the market for a new helmet, so I find this thread interesting and timely. But it is rather difficult to get to the worthwhile points through the buzzing of the bees in Franki-boy's head. I've heard the Krygowski schtick so often -- and it was dull the first time -- I can recite it. And still I'm not convinced that a single world of it is either true or worthwhile.

Why don't you shut up and **** off, Krygowski, so we can some work done?

Andre Jute
A reasonable man

Andre Jute

rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:24:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:13:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 11:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

No. Because you stated that "no helmet equates to zero protection" which means all helmets have some protection.

O.K. I'll rephrase that. if we assume that a total lack of a helmet
equates to zero protection... :-)

Ah, but it doesn't! For years, we had a quite clever poster here (Guy
Chapman) who noted, by analogy, that his wooly cap had saved his life!

I could make the same claim. The only time I hit my head while riding
was when I was a teen. It was a fairly hard hit, and I'm sure a helmet
would have been crushed or cracked, had they existed and I had been
wearing one. So I guess it was the wooly cap that saved me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Want to have some fun? Take a couple of melons and put a wooly cap on one and a helmet on the other and then drop them from a a respectable height so that the wooly cap hits the pavement first and also the helmet hits the pavement first. I'm willing to be that t he melon with the helmet over it will suffer less damage than the melon with the wooly cap.

It's a very popular demonstration, quite useful at scaring parents and
their little kids away from ever riding bicycles. Too bad they don't do
the same thing for those much bigger sources of brain injuries - riding
in cars and walking.

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?


But! But! Frank! The government is only trying (by legislation) to
make you safe...

Perhaps a logical extenuation of the concept would be simply
outlawing those dangerous devices called bicycles.
Think of it, perhaps 800 lives, and thousands of injuries, saved every
year.

And it makes perfect sense in the USian logical system. After all,
every time there is a mass shooting the anti gun fraternity is
screaming for guns to be banned and here we have this two wheeled
device that is killing 800 perfectly good tax paying US citizens every
year.

Ban The Two Wheel Killers!
--
cheers,

John B.


Absolutely! If every scary looking firearm were to suddenly
vanish why we'd all be safe:

Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000? What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a danger.

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

We just had two mass murders within about half a day, one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 13:36:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 5:47:38 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 11:49 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 21:03:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Visors returned 10 years later with a softer
material and breakaway mounting)

But they blind you when you get down on the drops.

Yesterday evening, my wife and I rode the tandem out to a nearby town to
get dinner. We returned after sunset, happy to have our generator
headlight running.

But the sky still had quite a bit of light, especially as we started
home. In that situation, I find the bill of my cycling cap handy.
Shading the sky's brightness helps with low light vision. And it's even
handier when a car approaches with bright headlights.

The cycling cap makes it easy to adjust the position of the bill so the
glare is blocked but the road surface is visible.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I agree with Joy. Visors or a cap annoyingly block you field
of view when riding in the drops or even low on the hoods. They are OK
when riding more upright on a utility bike or ATB. I rely on good
sunglasses when on my road bike.

Lou

Nope, visors don't restrict vision... you just turn the cap around :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 14:59:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 11:32:31 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 15:21:48 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

I just got an advertisement from Trek in which they now claim that the
latest Wavecell has not 28 times but 48 times the protection for your
head than normal foam.

The question to ask yourself is "where is the point of failure now".

When mushroom style bicycle helmets, aka bell, first came out, there was
a nasty rise in a spine based injury of a rather severe and fatal type.

Please don't publish crap like this without references.

Tom, I'm hoping you will someday post something _with_ a reference!

- Frank Krygowski

Geeze, a reference? You'll put poor old Tom out of business.
(Or maybe awaken him to reality :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

On 8/4/2019 7:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:24:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:13:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 11:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

No. Because you stated that "no helmet equates to zero protection" which means all helmets have some protection.

O.K. I'll rephrase that. if we assume that a total lack of a helmet
equates to zero protection... :-)

Ah, but it doesn't! For years, we had a quite clever poster here (Guy
Chapman) who noted, by analogy, that his wooly cap had saved his life!

I could make the same claim. The only time I hit my head while riding
was when I was a teen. It was a fairly hard hit, and I'm sure a helmet
would have been crushed or cracked, had they existed and I had been
wearing one. So I guess it was the wooly cap that saved me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Want to have some fun? Take a couple of melons and put a wooly cap on one and a helmet on the other and then drop them from a a respectable height so that the wooly cap hits the pavement first and also the helmet hits the pavement first. I'm willing to be that t he melon with the helmet over it will suffer less damage than the melon with the wooly cap.

It's a very popular demonstration, quite useful at scaring parents and
their little kids away from ever riding bicycles. Too bad they don't do
the same thing for those much bigger sources of brain injuries - riding
in cars and walking.

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?


But! But! Frank! The government is only trying (by legislation) to
make you safe...

Perhaps a logical extenuation of the concept would be simply
outlawing those dangerous devices called bicycles.
Think of it, perhaps 800 lives, and thousands of injuries, saved every
year.

And it makes perfect sense in the USian logical system. After all,
every time there is a mass shooting the anti gun fraternity is
screaming for guns to be banned and here we have this two wheeled
device that is killing 800 perfectly good tax paying US citizens every
year.

Ban The Two Wheel Killers!
--
cheers,

John B.


Absolutely! If every scary looking firearm were to suddenly
vanish why we'd all be safe:

Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000? What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a danger.

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

We just had two mass murders within about half a day, one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.
--
cheers,

John B.


As I often note, we're a large nation. We have one of
everything.

We are indeed a very well armed country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7ba8f4d2160

And yet today, as most days, the greater bulk of firearms
were nicely oiled and packed in their cases.

Violent events per lawfully armed citizen are extremely low
but as compared to countries without significant firearm
ownership, higher.

As with our current contraband drug discussion, Mexico has
draconian and extensive firearm regulation, a virtual
prohibition, yet their firearm murder rate is horrific.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ence-up-report

It isn't clear to me that the Vice Lords, MS-13, Crips,
Bloods or P-Stone Nation will disarm just because law
abiding citizens would.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/4/2019 7:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:25:38 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:12:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:06:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 2:24:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 7:47:21 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 1:09 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:13:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?

Wrong again Frank. There's no mandatory helmet law where I live.

Really? I thought you lived in Ontario.

From Wikipedia:
"The use of bicycle helmets is compulsory in the provinces of British
Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and
Prince Edward Island.[12] In the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and
Ontario, the use of helmets is mandatory for cyclists under the age of
18 years of age.[13][14][15][16]"

Perhaps you're unaware of the law? If so, perhaps you should read up
before arguing.


Last time I looked this is rec.BICYCLES.tech not rec.pedestrians.tech or
rec.car.tech. Therefore most of us who talk about helmets here are
talking about helmets as they pertain to BICYCLING.

If that's how you feel, you should have taken your "smash a melon"
helmet promoting argument to rec.melons.tech, or some other such newsgroup.

Why are so many people so dedicated to claiming that only _bicyclists_
should (or must) wear helmets, as if bicycling has tremendous brain
injury risk? Do those people not understand the numbers? Or, like the
laws, do those people just not bother to examine them?

--
- Frank Krygowski

I'm over 18 thus there is NO mandatory helmet law for me.

I'm aware of that. But your statement was "There's no mandatory helmet law
where I live." That was clearly false. You should admit it.

There is a MHL in Ontario, but due largely to the efforts of a guy I happen to
correspond with, the law was amended so it doesn't apply to adults.

I'm quite sure that if the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL
would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski

BULL****! Frank. You do NOT know what I think!

The issue isn't so much what you think, Sir. It's what you did - or more
precisely, what you didn't do.

The person I'm alluding to was part of a lobbying group that worked hard against
an adult MHL for Ontario. The bill as originally written mandated helmets for
ALL bicyclists at ALL times, just as do the MHLs in British Columbia, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI etc. The lobbying group in Ontario (largely led
by my friend) managed to convince legislators that adults should be allowed
to gasp! decide for themselves.

Now, Sir, were you part of that group? Did you contact your legislators? What
_did_ you do to allow freedom of choice?

I suspect you did nothing. I suspect that at the time, you were still arguing
ferociously in favor of helmets, using nonsense like "the melon test." IOW, if
the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, do you think that you are God that you know what others thousands of miles from you do/did/didn't do/know/think? I've seen so many posts by you where you take exception to events that happened very far from you. Exceptions wherein you stated that the person on the scene was wrong. It must be nice to be omniscient.

Sir, please skip the deflections. When that mandatory helmet law was
being worked on, what _did_ you do to make sure at least adults retained
freedom of choice?

Don't sidestep. If you helped with that effort, tell us what you did. If
you didn't help with that effort, admit it.

If you deflect again without answering, we can certainly assume you did
nothing. It may even be a clue that you actively opposed freedom of choice.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/4/2019 8:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:


Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000? What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a danger.

Yes, nobody much objects to long guns in the woods here. But "can't
legally carry a pistol in a pocket"? Some here would say that's akin to
slicing off a man's ... um, masculinity. (And it's true that some men
seem to confuse their guns with their genital organs.)

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

But you don't think the differences in gun laws are a factor?


We just had two mass murders within about half a day, one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.

You seem to be sidestepping my question. How often _does_ that happen
where you live?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 20:45:01 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/4/2019 7:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:24:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:13:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 11:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

No. Because you stated that "no helmet equates to zero protection" which means all helmets have some protection.

O.K. I'll rephrase that. if we assume that a total lack of a helmet
equates to zero protection... :-)

Ah, but it doesn't! For years, we had a quite clever poster here (Guy
Chapman) who noted, by analogy, that his wooly cap had saved his life!

I could make the same claim. The only time I hit my head while riding
was when I was a teen. It was a fairly hard hit, and I'm sure a helmet
would have been crushed or cracked, had they existed and I had been
wearing one. So I guess it was the wooly cap that saved me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Want to have some fun? Take a couple of melons and put a wooly cap on one and a helmet on the other and then drop them from a a respectable height so that the wooly cap hits the pavement first and also the helmet hits the pavement first. I'm willing to be that t he melon with the helmet over it will suffer less damage than the melon with the wooly cap.

It's a very popular demonstration, quite useful at scaring parents and
their little kids away from ever riding bicycles. Too bad they don't do
the same thing for those much bigger sources of brain injuries - riding
in cars and walking.

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?


But! But! Frank! The government is only trying (by legislation) to
make you safe...

Perhaps a logical extenuation of the concept would be simply
outlawing those dangerous devices called bicycles.
Think of it, perhaps 800 lives, and thousands of injuries, saved every
year.

And it makes perfect sense in the USian logical system. After all,
every time there is a mass shooting the anti gun fraternity is
screaming for guns to be banned and here we have this two wheeled
device that is killing 800 perfectly good tax paying US citizens every
year.

Ban The Two Wheel Killers!
--
cheers,

John B.


Absolutely! If every scary looking firearm were to suddenly
vanish why we'd all be safe:

Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000? What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a danger.

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

We just had two mass murders within about half a day, one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.
--
cheers,

John B.


As I often note, we're a large nation. We have one of
everything.

We are indeed a very well armed country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7ba8f4d2160

And yet today, as most days, the greater bulk of firearms
were nicely oiled and packed in their cases.

Violent events per lawfully armed citizen are extremely low
but as compared to countries without significant firearm
ownership, higher.

As with our current contraband drug discussion, Mexico has
draconian and extensive firearm regulation, a virtual
prohibition, yet their firearm murder rate is horrific.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ence-up-report

It isn't clear to me that the Vice Lords, MS-13, Crips,
Bloods or P-Stone Nation will disarm just because law
abiding citizens would.

Yes, certainly. But as someone (your good self?) once remarked "making
firearms illegal means that only criminals will have guns" :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 00:13:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 8:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:


Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000? What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a danger.

Yes, nobody much objects to long guns in the woods here. But "can't
legally carry a pistol in a pocket"? Some here would say that's akin to
slicing off a man's ... um, masculinity. (And it's true that some men
seem to confuse their guns with their genital organs.)

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

But you don't think the differences in gun laws are a factor?

I was pointing out that the table I saw was based on UNODC rates.

But I'm not sure whether gun laws, specifically, are really a factor
in Thai homicide rates. Certainly the news is full of knife, club,
whatever, (even by hand), murders and illegal ownership of firearms is
extremely common so I'm not sure what effect the rather strict gun
laws in Thailand have on homicide rates.

As an aside I might mention that the CDC homicide numbers in the U.S.
seem to be all - homicides - 19,510, Firearms - 14,542 so about 75% of
homicides in the U.S. age gun related. But!

According to the Centers for Disease Control, using data available for
analysis on September 5, 2018, there were a reported 70,652 deaths
attributed to drug overdose in the US for the year ending December
2017. Some deaths were still under investigation. The CDC projects
that the total for 2017 will be 72,222.

It makes the 14,542 gun deaths seem a bit.... well one might say
somewhat less than urgent :-)

According to Statistia some 43% of U.S. households owned one or more
guns in 2017. That is (I believe) some 126,220,000 households with
guns and 14,000 gun deaths (not, I believe, including self inflected
death) or a rate of 1 gun death per 9,015.7 households.

And Auto Deaths? Some 37,133 deaths in 2017 - the same year as the
14,000 gun deaths. Or one traffic death per 3,399 families.

But than, we all know that they are "traffic accidents", which seem to
be acceptable and "GUN DEATHS!" which are horrifying.


We just had two mass murders within about half a day, one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.

You seem to be sidestepping my question. How often _does_ that happen
where you live?

Well, I gave you the figures, about 61% of the U.S. numbers. So what
am I side stepping? I pointed out that the homicide stats for Thailand
is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S. 5.30/100,000.

I also commented on the gun laws here and pointed out that while "on
paper" they seem rather draconian but the real facts are that in many
cases they are rather lax. You can even buy home made guns on the
Internet here.
--

Cheers,

John B.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:25:38 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:12:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:06:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 2:24:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 7:47:21 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 1:09 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:13:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?

Wrong again Frank. There's no mandatory helmet law where I live.

Really? I thought you lived in Ontario.

From Wikipedia:
"The use of bicycle helmets is compulsory in the provinces of British
Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and
Prince Edward Island.[12] In the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and
Ontario, the use of helmets is mandatory for cyclists under the age of
18 years of age.[13][14][15][16]"

Perhaps you're unaware of the law? If so, perhaps you should read up
before arguing.


Last time I looked this is rec.BICYCLES.tech not rec.pedestrians.tech or
rec.car.tech. Therefore most of us who talk about helmets here are
talking about helmets as they pertain to BICYCLING.

If that's how you feel, you should have taken your "smash a melon"
helmet promoting argument to rec.melons.tech, or some other such newsgroup.

Why are so many people so dedicated to claiming that only _bicyclists_
should (or must) wear helmets, as if bicycling has tremendous brain
injury risk? Do those people not understand the numbers? Or, like the
laws, do those people just not bother to examine them?

--
- Frank Krygowski

I'm over 18 thus there is NO mandatory helmet law for me.

I'm aware of that. But your statement was "There's no mandatory helmet law
where I live." That was clearly false. You should admit it.

There is a MHL in Ontario, but due largely to the efforts of a guy I happen to
correspond with, the law was amended so it doesn't apply to adults.

I'm quite sure that if the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL
would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski

BULL****! Frank. You do NOT know what I think!

The issue isn't so much what you think, Sir. It's what you did - or more
precisely, what you didn't do.

The person I'm alluding to was part of a lobbying group that worked hard against
an adult MHL for Ontario. The bill as originally written mandated helmets for
ALL bicyclists at ALL times, just as do the MHLs in British Columbia, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI etc. The lobbying group in Ontario (largely led
by my friend) managed to convince legislators that adults should be allowed
to gasp! decide for themselves.

Now, Sir, were you part of that group? Did you contact your legislators? What
_did_ you do to allow freedom of choice?

I suspect you did nothing. I suspect that at the time, you were still arguing
ferociously in favor of helmets, using nonsense like "the melon test." IOW, if
the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, do you think that you are God that you know what others thousands
of miles from you do/did/didn't do/know/think? I've seen so many posts by
you where you take exception to events that happened very far from you.
Exceptions wherein you stated that the person on the scene was wrong. It
must be nice to be omniscient.

Cheers


A rhetorical question?

--
duane