Helmet Nazis at It Again!

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:34:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
SMS writes:
I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a
bald-faced liar or merely delusional.
Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not)
while you're out driving your stoopid car.

I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some
meds, the better.

Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most
of us have done.

You helmet zealots are too much.
But then, you car worshippers are too much, too.
Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear
helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort.

Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet,

There are more than two pro-helmet zealots posting on these
newsgroups.

Keats was responding to posts from Steven Sharf and me, neither of
which are "pro-helmet zealots" as neither of us has demanded that
others
wear helmets. I don't recall anyone else demanding that either.

And some of them have posted that they are perfectly happy with MHL's
- as long as they apply to other people.

Are you really that stupid? Someone simply posted a wisecrack
suggesting that a particularly obnoxious poster, and no one else, be
required to wear a helmet. It was obviously meant as a joke.

Flailor, being one, doesn't /get/ jokes.

HTH

writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:27:53 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

So what? A perfectly valid reason to use a helmet is to reduce
the time spend recovering from non-fatal head injuries, or (if you
are lucky) to avoid a head injury.


And by doing so one increases both the perception that cycling is
dangerous (false) and that probability that politicians will introduce
an MHL (true), both of which will reduce cycling, with concommittant
increases in public health costs; your vaunted validiity vanishes.

Thus proving that *you* are the true zealot, objecting to people
*voluntarily* choosing to use a helmet for whatever reason. You
simply don't have to believe that cycling is "dangerous" to decide to
wear a helmet. You may simply value your time so much that you don't
want to risk any additional unnecessary "down time" due to a head
injury. You know, you are cross training for another activity far
more important to you, and down time due to a cycling injury would
be rather counterproductive.

Your own "reasoning" would suggest that wearing helmets in a
construction zone (as construction workers sometimes must do)
discourages people from entering that line of work. Do you think
anyone believes that?

Oh, and I might add that I know one cyclist who uses a bicycle helmet
while driving her car. No, she does not think driving is that
dangerous. It is simply a very old car with a large bolt where the
shoulder harness is attached and she didn't want to bang her head on
it. Her use of a helmet has not discouraged driving.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Your "helmet promotional material" is
probably just advertising,

Nonsense. Where I live there are "public service" announcements on
the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent
88% of head injuries.

I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't
know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn
thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I
gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements.

Given everything else you've posted, however, I really don't believe a
word you say - you have zero credibility as I've caught you obviously
lying about various people during this discussion.

and IMHO anyone who believes advertising is such a fool that they
probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway.


That might well be the goal.

In your case, I'd advise against getting out of bed too.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote:


Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't
helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.?


Indeed.

And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and
pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do
anything to wriggle out of answering.

More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory
helmet laws

False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL.

What are you babbling about? I don't even remember seeing a post
from "Ozark" so he couldn't have said very much.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:01:14 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Your own "reasoning" would suggest that wearing helmets in a
construction zone (as construction workers sometimes must do)
discourages people from entering that line of work. Do you think
anyone believes that?


Your extension is false and without merit.

I think it quite likely that some people choose not to seek employment
in situations that they consider dangerous - and reasonably so if the
danger is real, and the compensation insufficient. That construction
workers are required to wear helmets I assume is a different situation
from cyclists being similarly required; the difference being both that
construction IS dangerous and their helmets ARE protective.

wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote:


Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't
helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.?


Indeed.

And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and
pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do
anything to wriggle out of answering.

More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory
helmet laws

False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL.

In this matter, one other poster has asked you, "Are you really this
stupid?" I'll add to the growing chorus: are you really this stupid? Or
are you just being deceptive?

Which is it:

Stupid?

or

Deceptive?

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:08:31 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote:


Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't
helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.?


Indeed.

And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and
pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do
anything to wriggle out of answering.

More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory
helmet laws

False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL.

What are you babbling about? I don't even remember seeing a post
from "Ozark" so he couldn't have said very much.

Look for this in Google groups:

"I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced"

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:05:51 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Your "helmet promotional material" is
probably just advertising,

Nonsense. Where I live there are "public service" announcements on
the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent
88% of head injuries.

I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't
know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn
thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I
gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements.


There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

On 7 Oct 2006 15:22:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote:


Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't
helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.?


Indeed.

And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and
pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do
anything to wriggle out of answering.

More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory
helmet laws

False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL.

In this matter, one other poster has asked you, "Are you really this
stupid?" I'll add to the growing chorus: are you really this stupid? Or
are you just being deceptive?

Which is it:

Stupid?

or

Deceptive?

Are you or are you not in favour of an MHL that forces me to wear a
helmet?

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

Where I live there are "public service" announcements on
the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent
88% of head injuries.

I've never seen such announcements in the newspapers around here. Don't
know about the radio as I've more or less permanently shut the goddamn
thing off due to excessive loud, obnoxious advertising, but before I
gave up on radio, I never heard any such announcements.

Bill's introduced an Interesting debate technique: saying "I'm
ignorant, so you must be wrong."

I have repeatedly seen such false helmet-promotion statements, in
newspaper articles, in helmet promotional pamplets, in web pages, and
in testimonial materials provided to legislators.

You may choose to go through life ignoring all media, if you like. But
the resulting ignorance does NOT work as proof. What you don't know
about can certainly exist!

- Frank Krygowski