Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

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


:-) :-) :-)

Can you believe it's Bill Zaumen saying that? :-)

Krygowski is trying to cover up the fact that Wolfgang has as much of
an anti-helmet agenda as Krygowski does. BTW, if I remember
correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set, I presume
because he was posting from work, so don't expect to find his
rants on the subject in the archives.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski writes:

Michael wrote:


I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
have that helmet on.

And I'm willing to bet you wouldn't. Why? Because the absolutely
_tremendous_ rise in bike helmet use hasn't caused a significant
change in serious head injuries per cyclist. In fact, if anything,
there are more head injuries per cyclist than before.

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. With a large
vehicle, you are far more likely to have you head hit in primary
impact then when the vehicle is small enough that you can see
over it. And the larger size cuts your sight lines considerably.

And that's been going on during the same time period that helmet
use increased.

Much more likely, IMO: all these helmets are producing stories that go
like this: "Wow, dude, my helmet touched the ground!!! It must have
saved my life!!!"

This is typical Krygowksi bull**** - putting words in people's mouths.
In fact, I've never seen him reply to a post in which someone reported
an incident where a helmet might have helped without discounting the
helmet. Not *one* incident whatsoever.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

(Bill Z.):

Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
^
Hi Bill. Still digging? :-}


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

"dgk" wrote in message
...

.. To me, it is likely
that his victory came from the fact that his team made the voting
machines that left us no paper trail to verify. I think they cheated.

Oh geez....Are we going to have to listen to this stupid bull**** for the
next four years? Show some proof or stick it.

Cheto

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:
BTW, if I remember
correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set...

As usual, you're either remembering wrong or inventing things.

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


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

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.

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

I think what would suffice for the latter would be data showing an
increase in serious injuries to parts of the body other than the head,
significantly greater than the increase in serious head injuries.

So, Bill: Got data?


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

Ken [NY] wrote:

In 1996, Clinton got 49% of the vote,
a plurality, but not a majority. I don't remember anyone saying he had
no mandate to pursue his announced policies.

Do you remember Clinton _claiming_ he had a mandate? If so, you should
give a quote. If not, quit making yourself look foolish.


"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)

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

Ken [NY] wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:41:17 -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.

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?

Now perhaps you should return to the topic of the thread - or better,
some simpler bike-related topic. The simpler the topic, the less
trouble you'll have.

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

Bill Z. Wrote:

My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
out of touch with the real world. Any bets?

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

To quote a phrase from Ronald Reagan (and no Zilly Bill - that does,
not make me a republican - I'm not an American anyway - but that's
beside the point) "Well there you go again!" Bill Zauman has this
repetitious tendency that he seems to need to make irrelevant swipes at
someone he doesn't agree with.

Crawl back into your hole Zauman - you're a first rate incorrigible
jerk.
Oh from what you've demonstrated on other threads Im sure that it's
clear to a lot of other readers that if there's anyone who's out of
touch with the real world, Billy boy, it's you - you win hands down.

Roger


--
RogerDodger

DT Wrote:
I think many parents and youth are simply unaware of the inherent
dangers
of sport and the benefits if wearing helmets as was the cace with
seatbelts. The law will change all.



I think that you're obviously unaware of the fact that the so called
"benefits if wearing helmets" is nothing but an illusion fostered by
over-anxious and credulous people. As to dangers, there everywhere but
you need to keep some perspective and proportion. Before you start
dictating that cyclists need to wear them lets start with the groups of
people engaged in the activities where most head injuries occur. Yes,
let's get motorists and pedestrians to wear them first - set a good
example and all that sort of stuff. But no, that would never happen
would it? Why not - there's the all- too-human hypocrisy creeping in -
don't people just love to poke their self righteous noses into other
peoples affairs "you should do this!" But what if there's even more
justification for them to take a dose of the medicine that they so
dogmatically prescribe for others - different story then isn't it?
Busybody bigots and hypocrites.

Futhermore, the last thing Cycling needs is a fearmongering campaign,
turning an infrequent bugbear into an overblown bogey purely to scare
people into wearing a head decoration that simply doesn't do anything
like what it's cracked up to do. The reality about helmets is that they
are more symbolic than protective.

Roger


--
RogerDodger