A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old November 9th 04, 03:30 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

Peter, you are wasting your time. As far as Zaumen is concerned there
are only two types of people in the world: people who agree with him,
and liars.


Guy, of course, is lying again. I've never called anyone a "liar" for
simply disagreeing with me. I have for claiming I've said things that
I never said or posting libelous statements that they couldn't back
up.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Ads
  #102  
Old November 9th 04, 03:32 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:25:06 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.


Your house a bit short of mirrors, then, Bill?


More infantile name calling from Guy. What a moron.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #103  
Old November 9th 04, 03:32 AM
B i l l S o r n s o n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Ken [NY] wrote:


"When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye
have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast
the fetters."
--Koran, SURA1 47.-MUHAMMAD [XCVI.]


" Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of
the priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death.
Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12)



Ah, see any Jews or Christians on television, slashing off
heads of civilians?


I seem to recall some Texas governor presiding over record numbers of
executions, while loudly calling himself a Christian. (But you're
right about televising it; that would be bad for election campaigns.)

Funny thing, though. There _are_ lots of Christians that are against
the death penalty. As I understand it, it's supposed to have
something to do with one of those Ten Commandments.



Just the fact that you'd compare kidnapping innocent men /and women/ and
cutting off their heads to capital punishment of /convicted murderers/
(after years and years of legal appeals while being incarcerated and treated
/relatively/ humanely) speaks volumes...ABOUT YOU, FRANK.

Now why not take your prejudices to some appropriate newsgroup?


Is there an alt.head-in-the-sand?!?

Bill "sign yourself up" S.


  #104  
Old November 9th 04, 03:41 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote in message :

really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!


LOL! Excellent use of irony, Mr. K :-)


Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted,
not to mention the fact that Krygowski was claiming helmets don't
work but apparently (given their reaction) neither want to talk about
controling for changes in driver behavior over the time frame when
helmet use went up substantially. It's the usual double standard
on their part.

Also, a few minutes spent outside at an intersection looking at
drivers in the Bay Area will convince you that there is a major
problem with people running red lights and otherwise behaving far more
recklessly than was typical 30 years ago. It is simply common
knowledge, and is hardly surprising. Just plot a graph of the
population changes over the past 30 years with the number of police
officers on the road handing out moving violations. If you don't think
that has an impact, then ask why a standard police procedure is to
step up enforcement a few days before they do a speed survey to set
the speed limit when a city would like the limit reduced.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #105  
Old November 9th 04, 04:11 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Keller writes:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:23:45 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:



Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
silence.



But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
how often you do this sort of thing.

Oh, and one other thing - I posted it with the caveat "if I remembered
correctly." It meant what it said. Your statement about "inventing
things" is simply character assassination. You'd fit quite well
in Bush's election campaign - those *******s have the same ethics
you do.


Isn't it funny the way people who don't like a position (that mandatory
helmet laws are harmful and counterproductive) but can't find any facts
to back up their position, attack the person (messenger) instead?


Isn't it funny how anti-helmet people will post statements such as
yours while ignoring what Krygowski said, namely "Bill, I'm
continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to silence,"
(and that is after I had posted an accurate account of what
transpired.)

Truth is absolute, and does not depend on the personal characteristics of
the person telling the truth.


Krygowksi's actions are self explanatory. He's been doing that for
a good decade, and you appear to be as hypocritical as he is.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, the post I responded to was a purely
personal attack on his part with nothing in it about helmets. Sounds
to me like you are a real hypocrite - you guys post personal attack
after personal attack and then whine if you get even a peep in response.
And that also has been going on for at least a decade.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #106  
Old November 9th 04, 04:17 AM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Z. wrote:


Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...


Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were pertinent.
You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!

Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data. As
usual.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

  #107  
Old November 9th 04, 04:18 AM
RogerDodger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Maggie Wrote:
RogerDodger wrote in
message ...

Btw, what do motorcycle helmets have to do with bicycling?


I guess the same thing as helmets for skateboarding, rollerblading or
any other sport where you could possible fall on your head and crack
your skull. I was speaking of "choices" we make or should be free to
make.

Unless you wear a motorcycle helmet to ride your bike they have
nothing to do with bicycling. My point was choices we make.


Minor point - the statement "Btw, what do motorcycle helmets have to do
with bicycling?" wasn't from me Maggie - it was part of what what
someone else said and which I included in a quote (and don't actually
agree with).

One major concern held by many others (including me) is this ever
onward incursion by these namby pamby interfering Nannies. It's a pain
- where do these people get their Nanny licences from? As much as we
despise having other people poking their paternalistic interfering
noses into our business, I think it's important to recognise that there
are some situations where paternalistic interference is warranted or
justifiable (not here tho!). What we would be better off doing is going
beyond simply expressing our general disdain for various interventions
(because that's not going to do anything to ward off these
ecroachments), and into debating and rebutting whatever claims are made
in support of the particular interventions that we consider unwarranted
or misguided.

Roger


--
RogerDodger

  #108  
Old November 9th 04, 04:49 AM
RogerDodger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Bill Z. Wrote:
Peter Keller writes:



Isn't it funny the way people who don't like a position (that

mandatory
helmet laws are harmful and counterproductive) but can't find any

facts
to back up their position, attack the person (messenger) instead?


Isn't it funny how anti-helmet people will post statements such as
yours while ignoring what Krygowski said, namely "Bill, I'm
continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to silence,"
(and that is after I had posted an accurate account of what
transpired.)

Truth is absolute, and does not depend on the personal

characteristics of
the person telling the truth.


Krygowksi's actions are self explanatory. He's been doing that for
a good decade, and you appear to be as hypocritical as he is.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, the post I responded to was a
purely
personal attack on his part with nothing in it about helmets. Sounds
to me like you are a real hypocrite - you guys post personal attack
after personal attack and then whine if you get even a peep in
response.
And that also has been going on for at least a decade.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB


The difference is, Bill, that you're beyond the pale with your
gratuitous ad hominem attacks, whereas others like Frank, Guy, myself
and now Peter are making justifiable observations and criticisms of
your MO. What you can't seem to get into your thick head is that your
manner is appalling and you seem to be completely impervious to
feedback aimed at trying to get you cut out that sort of unacceptable
crap.

Roger


--
RogerDodger

  #109  
Old November 9th 04, 05:16 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...


Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were
pertinent. You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!


Where did you respond? Maybe you should repeat it as a real response
never arrived.

Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data.
As usual.


You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use. It is
*your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

As to the age of the stories, the substantial increase in helmet use
happened about 10 years ago (a bit more, actually), so those years
*are* relevant. The California helmet law as also passed at around
that time.

Also, pedestrian fatalities *are* relevant (the issue was evidence of
increasingly irresponsible driving.) Of course you know that and are
IMHO pretending otherwise.

I can tell you from personal experience that in the 1970s, if a
pedestrian even looked like he or she was going to cross at an
intersection, drivers in the Bay Area would stop. Now (illegally)
they if anything speed up. If you *do* stop for a pedestrian,
which is required by law, the drivers behind you will throw a
fit and start honking their horns.

So don't try to pretend that driver behavior has not gotten
substantially worse. It has gotten worse.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #110  
Old November 9th 04, 05:35 AM
RogerDodger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Just zis Guy, you know? Wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:02:32 GMT, Chris Phillipo
wrote:

Very droll. So, are you sure of that? Because the proposed law

over
here would have been criminal law, and existing traffic laws

(example
above) are criminal law.


I said no one is going to jail for not wearing a helmet and I stand

by
that. Show me proof to the contrary.


No, what you actually said was that because no-one is going to jail,
it is not a crime. That does not follow. I am asking: are you sure
that the helmet law is outside the criminal code? Because the law
proposed in the UK and to the best of my knowledge the laws in Aus
and NZ, are criminal law. This is actually a completely straight
question.

Guy


Strictly speaking fines for not wearing a helmet might be a misdemeanor
rather than a crime but the fact is that if you don''t pay these fines
then you can end up being jailed for not paying the fines for not
wearing a helmet. Shortening that last clause gives "getting jailed for
not wearing a helmet".

I seem to remember seeing on an Aussie website (cyclehelmets.org?) a
press clipping of a chap (a Kiwi in Perth) who was jailed by an over
enthusiastic cop. This is not an unusual occurrence I might add - for
some strange reason there seems to be a worldwide propensity for cops
to treat petty and inconsequential cycling infractions as being very
very serious.

Roger


--
RogerDodger

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski Social Issues 1716 October 24th 04 06:39 AM
Another doctor questions helmet research JFJones General 80 August 16th 04 10:44 AM
First Helmet : jury is out. Walter Mitty General 125 June 26th 04 02:00 AM
Fule face helmet - review Mikefule Unicycling 8 January 14th 04 06:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.