Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


Bill Z. wrote:


Frank Krygowski writes:


If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
should be detectable.

There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
which make cycling more dangerous than before.

Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
support it - as usual.


Read the ****ing newspapers.

:-) Wipe the froth off your mouth and keyboard, Bill. You're losing
control yet again!


See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/05/MNW14097.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1996/12/31/NEWS8420.dtl
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/12/MN74703.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/11/MN57241.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/11/14/EDITORIAL4921.dtl

Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data. In
particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more dangerous.
Given that the red light cameras are catching these people, it's
entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I know
there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous - but
really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!

Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in
red light running, and the increased cycling danger.


See above, including the cyclist fatalities. Couple that change in
behavior with larger vehicles and the results are simply obvious
to anyone with half a brain.

Actually, the sites you referenced talked about just one cyclist
fatality and _three_ gravely injured pedestrians - at least one of which
was a head injury. It wasn't clear if they were fatalities or not.

If a person were to take your contribution seriously, it seems they'd
get going promoting helmets for pedestrians, no?

Is that your next mission?



In any case, your idea is that helmets are helping safety, but the help
is undetectable because it's being offset by an even greater increase in
cyclist danger. So far, you've provided no data, only newspaper stories
from 8 or 9 years ago.

Got data?


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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:03:56 GMT, Chris Phillipo
wrote:



[The] helmet lobby in Canada is a figment of someone's overactive
imagination.


The helmet lobby exists. It is indisputable. People are out there
lobbying for helmet laws, and that is why you have this bill in
progress. There are people all over the world lobbying for helmet
laws.

Guy

There's _certainly_ a helmet lobby in the US! I know several people who
actively promote mandatory helmets, including lobbying legislatures!

There's also Randy Swart's site, in which he lobbies for mandatory
helmets for all ages. And Philip Graitcer's site which does the same.
Both are well connected and (apparently) well financed.

Chris, where do you think these MHL ideas come from?


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

Chris Phillipo wrote:
In article ,
says...

If you sell bicycles, then you really ought to know that ownership does
not
equal ridership. Today, probably 95% of all bicycles sold never see 100
miles, ever.

Club ridership is also misleading. There is more club ridership, but not
to
many years ago almost nobody rode in clubs.

Austin



Grasp for a few more straws, you'll be able to build your own haystack.

You have a stake in the outcome, in case you didn't notice. Since you make
money selling bicycle helmets you need the result to come out a certain way.

Austin

Chris Phillipo wrote:
In article ,
says...
Subject: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through
From: "AustinMN"
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc, ont.bicycle

Chris Phillipo wrote:
In article ,
says...

Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
the case of kids parental enforcement.


Well not counting you, I haven't met that person.

I've met a dozen. I'm even married to a woman who has said "If they make
me
wear a helmet, I'm not riding." I know her well enough that it makes no
to
her difference if the law is enforced or not.


If it's not enforced, who is making here do anything? You perhaps?

She, unlike you, has a conscience.

Get an enema. You'll feel better, and you won't be so full of ****.

Austin

Dragan Cvetkovic" wrote in message
...
"AustinMN" writes:

There are no X characters in my address

Indeed there are none.

Dragan

Yes, indeed. An oversight since corrected.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

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 :-)

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Ken [NY] wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:14:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
claims:



[Ken NY:]

Sorry, Sir, but I did not send it off into a political thread,
I just followed it, due to my simplistic thinking, I guess. We
commoners are like that.

[fk:]
Bull****, Ken. This thread was about a helmet bill in Canada. You most
certainly did send it off into a political thread. Certainly, you can't
be _ignorant_ of that fact!

[Ken NY:]
Well, I was refering to something a gentleman wrote in another
thread:

That was obvious. You made a fool of yourself by bringing that topic
unbidden into _this_ thread, then pretending you didn't. If you're not
capable of keeping your conversations straight, you should either take
notes or stop posting.


Nothing wrong with my "conversations", Frank. I can bring in a
quote from another thread anytime I want to.

Sure you can. What you _can't_ do is say "Sorry, Sir, but I did not
send it off into a political thread, I just followed it, due to my
simplistic thinking, I guess. We commoners are like that."

Hmmm. Maybe I should retract that. You can say anything that occurs to
you, and you did say the above. But the effect is not what you'd like.
All that happens is your mistake is out there for everyone else to see.

BTW, I note the propensity of hard-ass right wingers to save all their
forgiveness for themselves. What ever happened to personal
responsibility? What ever happened to owning up to ones' mistakes? Are
those are only for other folks?


When I make a mistake, I own up to it. Something the left
never seems to do.

This is where you're supposed to say "And you're right, I _was_ the
first person to divert this thread into obnoxious politics."

But I note that you're still reserving all your forgiveness for
yourself, and refusing to admit your obvious mistake. Why is that?
Surely, you _can't_ believe you're making yourself look intelligent!

Now really, don't you think it's time to drop this and get back on topic?



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

Ken [NY] wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:05:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
claims:


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.



Now why not take your prejudices to some appropriate newsgroup?

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

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:21:52 -0600, "AustinMN"
wrote in message :

You have a stake in the outcome, in case you didn't notice. Since you make
money selling bicycle helmets you need the result to come out a certain way.

Correct. And compulsion is not it, unless he's planning on retiring
Real Soon Now.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:21:52 -0600, "AustinMN"
wrote in message :

You have a stake in the outcome, in case you didn't notice. Since you
make
money selling bicycle helmets you need the result to come out a certain
way.

Correct. And compulsion is not it, unless he's planning on retiring
Real Soon Now.

I'd thought of that, but I'm not sure he's capable of thinking that through.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address