texting and pedestrians

On 8/20/2011 1:14 PM, MikeWhoWhatWhereWhenWhyHow wrote:
"AMuzi" wrote in message
...
Apparently, I was mistaken. It's no big deal to kill a pedestrian now:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...,3252003.story


Don't lose all faith in Kalifornian sensibilities yet. A life sentence
contemplated in this case:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...0,322331.story

When did California annex Limerick County Ireland?

Why should the man be punished if the woman consented to be humped by
the dog?

The woman already received her punished according the Torah, but not the
dog: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/beastiality/lv20_16.html.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 20-8-2011 12:26, Duane Hebert schreef:
On 8/19/2011 11:41 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/19/2011 10:31 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Frank
wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
Apparently, I was mistaken. It's no big deal to kill a pedestrian
now:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...ped-killed,0,3...



From the article: "Ranjbar was taken to Los Angeles County-USC Medical
Center, where he died of head trauma, coroner's officials said."

But why no "Ranjbar was not wearing a helmet"? If he were a bicyclist,
that might have been the headline!


... sometimes it is decent to keep your mouth shut. Frank doesn't
understand that.

Perhaps I don't understand. Care to explain? Why is it OK to slander
every non-helmeted bicyclist victim with "he was not wearing a helmet,"
but it's indecent to mention that same fact regarding other head injury
traffic fatalities?

(For extra credit, you might explain NOT mentioning the helmets on
cyclist fatality victims who were wearing them. That happened with two
cyclist fatalities in our area.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 20, 1:25 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 20-8-2011 12:26, Duane Hebert schreef:
On 8/19/2011 11:41 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/19/2011 10:31 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Frank
wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
Apparently, I was mistaken. It's no big deal to kill a pedestrian
now:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...ped-killed,0,3...

From the article: "Ranjbar was taken to Los Angeles County-USC Medical
Center, where he died of head trauma, coroner's officials said."

But why no "Ranjbar was not wearing a helmet"? If he were a bicyclist,
that might have been the headline!

... sometimes it is decent to keep your mouth shut. Frank doesn't
understand that.

Perhaps I don't understand. Care to explain? Why is it OK to slander
every non-helmeted bicyclist victim with "he was not wearing a helmet,"
but it's indecent to mention...

.... to *us*...

(Get it now?)

... that same fact regarding other head injury
traffic fatalities?

(For extra credit, you might explain NOT mentioning the helmets on
cyclist fatality victims who were wearing them. That happened with two
cyclist fatalities in our area.)


(Premature) death sucks. Period. Why make a tasteless, smarmy,
disrespectful fuss (and trash every god damned discussion about
anything) just becasue it's Frank Krygowski's chip-on-the-shoulder pet
peeve.

Op 20-8-2011 22:25, Frank Krygowski schreef:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 20-8-2011 12:26, Duane Hebert schreef:
On 8/19/2011 11:41 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/19/2011 10:31 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Frank
wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
Apparently, I was mistaken. It's no big deal to kill a pedestrian
now:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...ped-killed,0,3...




From the article: "Ranjbar was taken to Los Angeles County-USC
Medical
Center, where he died of head trauma, coroner's officials said."

But why no "Ranjbar was not wearing a helmet"? If he were a
bicyclist,
that might have been the headline!


... sometimes it is decent to keep your mouth shut. Frank doesn't
understand that.

Perhaps I don't understand. Care to explain? Why is it OK to slander
every non-helmeted bicyclist victim with "he was not wearing a helmet,"
but it's indecent to mention that same fact regarding other head injury
traffic fatalities?

It is NOT OK to slender a just died cyclist AND it is not OK to slender
a just died pedestrian, just to make your point again and again with no
relevance in this case.

Lou

On 8/21/2011 1:04 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 20-8-2011 22:25, Frank Krygowski schreef:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 20-8-2011 12:26, Duane Hebert schreef:
On 8/19/2011 11:41 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/19/2011 10:31 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Frank
wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
Apparently, I was mistaken. It's no big deal to kill a pedestrian
now:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...ped-killed,0,3...





From the article: "Ranjbar was taken to Los Angeles County-USC
Medical
Center, where he died of head trauma, coroner's officials said."

But why no "Ranjbar was not wearing a helmet"? If he were a
bicyclist,
that might have been the headline!


... sometimes it is decent to keep your mouth shut. Frank doesn't
understand that.

Perhaps I don't understand. Care to explain? Why is it OK to slander
every non-helmeted bicyclist victim with "he was not wearing a helmet,"
but it's indecent to mention that same fact regarding other head injury
traffic fatalities?

It is NOT OK to slender a just died cyclist AND it is not OK to slender
a just died pedestrian, just to make your point again and again with no
relevance in this case.


Uh, "slander", I think. Actually libel, since this is written and not
spoken.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 20-8-2011 22:25, Frank Krygowski schreef:
Care to explain? Why is it OK to slander
every non-helmeted bicyclist victim with "he was not wearing a helmet,"
but it's indecent to mention that same fact regarding other head injury
traffic fatalities?

It is NOT OK to slender a just died cyclist AND it is not OK to slender
a just died pedestrian, just to make your point again and again with no
relevance in this case.

Perhaps, Lou, you are not aware that it is almost universal practice in
North America to blame the victim's hat choice in an account of a
cyclist's death. They take pains to state "The cyclist was not wearing
a helmet" whenever that's true. This happens in newspaper articles,
television newscasts, radio reports and online articles.

Forum discussions also do it, but tend to use a different style -
something like "Oh well, Darwin at work." Sometimes it's prospective,
as in "Don't wear a helmet if you don't want to. We need organ donors."

Will you attack all those who blame those cycling victims, and do so as
strongly as you've attacked me for simply mentioning this injustice?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 21, 8:00 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 20-8-2011 22:25, Frank Krygowski schreef:
Care to explain? Why is it OK to slander
every non-helmeted bicyclist victim with "he was not wearing a helmet,"
but it's indecent to mention that same fact regarding other head injury
traffic fatalities?

It is NOT OK to slender a just died cyclist AND it is not OK to slender
a just died pedestrian, just to make your point again and again with no
relevance in this case.

Perhaps, Lou, you are not aware that it is almost universal practice...

I think that's overstating the case quite a bit.

... in
North America to blame the victim's hat choice in an account of a
cyclist's death.

There's a lot of that, yes - too much; but those are mostly obvious
know-nothings spouting baloney. And as bicycling for transportation
grows in popularity (and it is - around here at least), more and more
people learn how things really are and that helmets aren't so
significant to bicycling safety, and more and more people will dismiss
the ridiculous assumption that a helmet would surely and necessarily
have saved someone.

That said, I think it's equally ridiculous to say that a helmet never
does save anyone, hiding behind the obvious fact that it can't be
proven in any case.

Then for some AHZ to come along and take apparent satisfaction in the
inevitable cases where a helmet *was* worn, but didn't save the victim
(inevitable because helmets obviously can not provide invincibility) -
to take what seems some kind of satisfaction in this because this
obviously *can* be proven and *is* proven all too often, but never
*needed* to be proven because any sensible person knows it could
happen... Well, to say the least this is incredibly callous, and
doesn't prove a thing anyway, so it almost comes off like gloating
over a horrible tragedy.

And here in this case, where you ask why the issue was not the victims
lack of a protective helmet for walking. We know you don't *really*
espouse walking helmets; you just do that because you want to
discredit promotion of bicycle helmets. It's sarcasm; and it's
incedibly distasteful under the circumstances.

And you bring this message to *us* - none of whom believe helmets make
bicyclists invincible, none of whom make more of the lack or presence
of a helmet on a victim than what it is. And you bring this message
out of the blue every chance you get and shove it in our faces and
then foam at the mouth about it like some kind of rabid terrier, and
demean and ridicule us for our personal choice to wear a helmet.

They take pains to state "The cyclist was not wearing
a helmet" whenever that's true. This happens in newspaper articles,
television newscasts, radio reports and online articles.


"They"?

We see this, too, and understand that it bugs you no end, but they're
just know-nothing idiots.

Look, we appreciate your advocacy, and that chip on your shoulder
gives us a bull terrier in the struggle against idiocy, but be our
comrade, man - not our detractor.

(Note my immediate response to that Portland Oregonian article
referenced in the 'Helmet Haters Hammered" thread: I simply lamented
still more zealotry and polarization.)

Forum discussions also do it, but tend to use a different style -
something like "Oh well, Darwin at work." Sometimes it's prospective,
as in "Don't wear a helmet if you don't want to. We need organ donors."


There are dip****s everywhere, man - get over it. Or take your smarmy
derision to them.

Will you attack all those who blame those cycling victims, and do so as
strongly as you've attacked me for simply mentioning this injustice?


Look, you've got a point about the limited value of bicycle helmets
(though you zealously take this point way beyond reason). I know you
feel that you have to counter the unreasonableness of "them", but
they're idiots, and they're not reading rbt.

Look around where bicycle transportation is taking off and beginning
to flourish. A lot of people wear helmets, but a lot of others
don't. Even the "promotion" of helmets in these places by
*reasonable* people is, well - measured and reasonable. One thing I
have noticed is that a lot of people who look like they know what
they're doing on a bicycle for transportation and do choose to wear a
helmet is that they choose *better* (hardshell) helmets; so maybe
helmets will get better as bicycle transportation becomes more
popular. But anyway places like Portland are beginning to look a
little like Amsterdam - where people are more realistic and pragmatic
about these things. Zealously going head-to-head and toe-to-toe with
the know-nothings spouting BS is one thing, but leave us out of it.

On 8/21/2011 11:21 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 21, 8:00 am, Frank
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
[...
Then for some AHZ to come along [...]
^^^
AHZ? Is that you, Steven M. Scharf?

And you bring this message to *us* - none of whom believe helmets make
bicyclists invincible, none of whom make more of the lack or presence
of a helmet on a victim than what it is. And you bring this message
out of the blue every chance you get and shove it in our faces and
then foam at the mouth about it like some kind of rabid terrier, and
demean and ridicule us for our personal choice to wear a helmet.[...]

On the positive side, at least this time Mr. Krygowski is not piling on
with false charges of racism, when he should know better.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Aug 21, 5:46 pm, "T°m Sherm@n" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 8/21/2011 11:21 AM, Dan O wrote:

snip

Then for some AHZ to come along [...]

^^^
AHZ?


II know - kind of polarized, and I hesitated there, but in this case I
think the shoe fits.

snip

Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 20-8-2011 12:26, Duane Hebert schreef:
On 8/19/2011 11:41 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/19/2011 10:31 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:08 pm, Frank
wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
Apparently, I was mistaken. It's no big deal to kill a pedestrian
now:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...ped-killed,0,3...



From the article: "Ranjbar was taken to Los Angeles County-USC Medical
Center, where he died of head trauma, coroner's officials said."

But why no "Ranjbar was not wearing a helmet"? If he were a bicyclist,
that might have been the headline!


You just can't help yourself, can you. (****ing idiot.)

Well, at least Frank Krygowski was not being racist.


But even you must see that was an idiotic thing to post.
And +1 on the ****ing idiot comment.


Indeed, sometimes it is decent to keep your mouth shut. Frank doesn't
understand that.

It's not the only thing.

--
JS.