How Stupid Is This Guy?

In article <VjP0c.59736$ah.28321 @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

theglobeandmail.comNationalOpen ↗

There's a couple of full time kooks in Canada who are the mikey V of helmet law activism. They so
far have only succeeded in draining their bank accounts. The major one, Avery something or other
doesn't even live in a province that has a mandatory helmet law. He's under the impression that I
should be thanking him for trying to protect my right to get a head injury.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

Chris Phillipo said:

In article <VjP0c.59736$ah.28321 @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

theglobeandmail.comNationalOpen ↗

There's a couple of full time kooks in Canada who are the mikey V of helmet law activism. They so
far have only succeeded in draining their bank accounts. The major one, Avery something or other
doesn't even live in a province that has a mandatory helmet law. He's under the impression that I
should be thanking him for trying to protect my right to get a head injury.

Chris, is he one of those "public health cost" argument guys? I.e. it will cost more to buy all
those helmets than all the head injuries would cost to treat. Guess its no kind of news that death
is cheaper than life ;-)

Shawn

Chris Phillipo <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <VjP0c.59736$ah.28321 @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

theglobeandmail.comRTGAM.20040301.wbike0301Open ↗ BNStory/National/

There's a couple of full time kooks in Canada who are the mikey V of helmet law activism. They so
far have only succeeded in draining their bank accounts. The major one, Avery something or other
doesn't even live in a province that has a mandatory helmet law. He's under the impression that I
should be thanking him for trying to protect my right to get a head injury.

Whether or not you agree with helmet laws, does anyone really hate wearing one enough to quit
cycling (as the article quotes imply everyone in his area will do)? Either he doesn't like biking
very much, or perhaps he has an itchy scalp condition.

"TBF" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

theglobeandmail.comBNStorOpen ↗
y/National/

Quoted message said:

The "no one will cycle any more" argument is dumb but I'd side with him against the law. Single
issue zealots can be annoying but less so than needless laws that restrict personal liberties. But
then again I live in a US state that just repealed a helmet law for motorcyclists so I doubt there
will be one for bicyclists here in the near future.

Chris

"TBF" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

theglobeandmail.comNationalOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I can remember the law being introduced here maybe 20 years ago.

We had all that hoo-hah about freedom of expression and the personal right to brain damage and the
like. Last time I heard the stats thrown about I seem to recall that that 20 kids a year are spared
serious brain injury or death because of helmets. And that's directly attributable to helmets,
apparently. Not just "child helmet wearers that survived accidents in general" figure.

Seems to be a small price to pay.
--
Westie

Brett Jaffee said:

Whether or not you agree with helmet laws, does anyone really hate wearing one enough to quit
cycling (as the article quotes imply everyone in his area will do)?

Back in the days of the helmet wars of r.b.o, Dave Blake (who at the time worked at the Keck Center
for Integrative Neuroscience in UCSC, and may still) did quite a bit of research on the subject. He
cited a study of the introduction of helmet laws in Australia & New Zealand, stating that cycling
use dropped by 1/3 the year the law was enacted.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

TBF said:

theglobeandmail.comNationalOpen ↗

It's never stupid to fight for your freedom. Your point?

Greg

"TBF" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

theglobeandmail.comBOpen ↗ NStory/National/

I think he's pretty stupid for not wearing a helmet if he mountain bikes. I rapped my noggin on a
rock not one week ago. Though it was the first time I've taken a significant blow to the helmet it
knocked my eyes out of focus and I was glad I had the protection.

If he's riding some other sort of bike I believe he can make a statistical case that riding isn't
all that dangerous with or without the helmet. Here's one such case:
neptune.spacebears.comhelmets.htmlOpen ↗

Key quote: "Of course, it's up to each cyclist to determine how his exposure to risk -- and
tolerance for risk -- matches up with the level of risk for the general population. Frankly, we
started this search for data expecting the numbers to be much higher than they are. But it turns
out we're talking about a few thousand injuries out of 3,000,000,000 miles cycled every year. With
odds like that we feel no more need for a helmet than we feel the need to strap a lightning rod to
our shorts.

But then again, we don't bother playing the lottery either."

But on the basic constitutional question I think the rider is square on. How can the court say "this
puts you at risk so you can't do it even though you should have the constitutional right"? If that's
allowed then the court can throw out the whole constitution just by saying the rights it gives could
be a risk! "Freedom of speech? Oh no, you might make someone mad and then they might beat you up!
Here we'll just decide what you should say then no one will get hurt."

Sure it's a small sort of loophole but I don't like loophole's being poked in the constitution. I'm
just glad it's in Nova Scotia.

--
- Joel C.

"Smile and take your awkward bow. Turn and stumble off the stage. Let the rain be your applause,
every encore soothe your rage." - "Benediction" by The Weakerthans

"BB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Brett Jaffee said:

Whether or not you agree with helmet laws, does anyone really hate

wearing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one enough to quit cycling (as the article quotes imply everyone in his area will do)?

Back in the days of the helmet wars of r.b.o, Dave Blake (who at the time worked at the Keck
Center for Integrative Neuroscience in UCSC, and may still) did quite a bit of research on the
subject. He cited a study of the introduction of helmet laws in Australia & New Zealand, stating
that cycling use dropped by 1/3 the year the law was enacted.

One data point. Needs to be backed up by more studies in more places over more time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a couple of full time kooks in Canada who are the mikey V of helmet law activism. They
so far have only succeeded in draining their bank accounts. The major one, Avery something or
other doesn't even live in a province that has a mandatory helmet law. He's under the impression
that I should be thanking him for trying to protect my right to get a head injury.

Chris, is he one of those "public health cost" argument guys? I.e. it will cost more to buy all
those helmets than all the head injuries would cost to treat. Guess its no kind of news that death
is cheaper than life ;-)

Shawn

No I think he uses the "People won't cycle if they have to wear helmets, therefore they will get fat
and have heart attacks" argument most frequently.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Chris Phillipo <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <VjP0c.59736$ah.28321 @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

theglobeandmail.comRTGAM.20040301.wbike0301Open ↗ BNStory/National/

There's a couple of full time kooks in Canada who are the mikey V of helmet law activism. They
so far have only succeeded in draining their bank accounts. The major one, Avery something or
other doesn't even live in a province that has a mandatory helmet law. He's under the impression
that I should be thanking him for trying to protect my right to get a head injury.

Whether or not you agree with helmet laws, does anyone really hate wearing one enough to quit
cycling (as the article quotes imply everyone in his area will do)? Either he doesn't like biking
very much, or perhaps he has an itchy scalp condition.

I have not met the person that would quit cycling for that reason. I have met a few that will ride
without a helmet and pay the fines if they get them and just write it off as the cost of enjoying
cycling. For guys who buy the high zoot helmets every year, the fines might be cheaper.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Brett Jaffee said:

Whether or not you agree with helmet laws, does anyone really hate wearing one enough to quit
cycling (as the article quotes imply everyone in his area will do)?

Back in the days of the helmet wars of r.b.o, Dave Blake (who at the time worked at the Keck
Center for Integrative Neuroscience in UCSC, and may still) did quite a bit of research on the
subject. He cited a study of the introduction of helmet laws in Australia & New Zealand, stating
that cycling use dropped by 1/3 the year the law was enacted.

Yes this is an argument used ad nauseam, unfortunately as you dig into it you find these
researchers frequently sit on a street corner and count cyclists going by to get their numbers, as
one study in Halifax
did. Well I did about 2500km last year without ever riding on a public street. So I guess I
don't count, and neither do the thousands of people buying 35+lb. DH and freeride rigs
either I guess.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, getnews1 @dslextreme.com says...

Quoted message said:

TBF said:

theglobeandmail.comNationalOpen ↗

It's never stupid to fight for your freedom. Your point?

Greg

Are you allowed to cycle naked in your city?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

"Chris Phillipo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, getnews1 @dslextreme.com says...

Quoted message said:

TBF said:

theglobeandmail.comBNStorOpen ↗
y/National/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's never stupid to fight for your freedom. Your point?

Greg

Are you allowed to cycle naked in your city?

Nobody would want to see me cycle naked. It would probably kill them so it's a safety issue. Forcing
people to wear helmets is not a safety issue, it's pure ignorance based on the lobbying of the
helmet industry.

Greg

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:41:15 +1300, "Westie"
<[email hidden]> blathered:

Quoted message said:

theglobeandmail.comNationalOpen ↗

I can remember the law being introduced here maybe 20 years ago.

We had all that hoo-hah about freedom of expression and the personal right to brain damage and the
like. Last time I heard the stats thrown about I seem to recall that that 20 kids a year are spared
serious brain injury or death because of helmets. And that's directly attributable to helmets,
apparently. Not just "child helmet wearers that survived accidents in general" figure.

It's hard to take lectures on safety from a native of the country with most dangerous roads in the
Western world.

Article in Christchurch Press, 30th Dec 2003 -
-----------------------------
A beer bottle thrown from a car has brought a Swiss couple's round-the-world cycling trip to a halt
in New Zealand. The bottle crashed into the frame of Nadine Rist's bike....shards of glass cut into
Rist's right leg, severing tendons near her ankle and below her knee.

The New Zealand leg of their trip started last month, and they were quickly introduced to the
rigours of riding on New Zealand roads. Rist had something thrown at her in Northland that missed,
but Laubli (her partner) ended up in a ditch in his bid to evade a sheep truck that was getting
dangerously close to him.

"We found it very hard to ride in New Zealand. We have ridden through Canada, the US and Mexico and
they are not nearly as bad as here," said Rist.

Motorists often did not give any space around cyclists and were impatient and abusive. "We think of
New Zealand as being sporting, outdoors country but it doesn't feel like it," said Rist.
-----------------------------

The Kiwi faith in helmets is quite touching. A Brazilian triathelete practising for a competition
there was knocked off his bike by a laden timber wagon during my visit. The Christchurch Press
reported (in all seriousness) that 'the truck rolled over his head, and it was only his helmet that
saved him'. Class.

Let's be honest. The compulsory helmet legislation in New Zealand was not introduced after a cool,
rational examination of the facts. It was enacted as a result of campaigning by a woman who's kid
was knocked off and killed by a car. Oddly, she didn't campaign for restrictive motoring
legislation, she just ensured that all cyclists, in all circumstances, were forced to wear helmets.

What kind of perverse system of logic persecutes the victim? Cycling is not inherently dangerous,
although being hit by a ton of metal doing 50 can smart a bit. If New Zealand (and Canada, and the
US, and the UK) are serious about reducing cycling related injuries, maybe they should look at what
countries like Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are doing.

Pete

Pete Jones said:

What kind of perverse system of logic persecutes the victim? Cycling is not inherently dangerous,
although being hit by a ton of metal doing 50 can smart a bit. If New Zealand (and Canada, and the
US, and the UK) are serious about reducing cycling related injuries, maybe they should look at
what countries like Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are doing.

(I'll take Germany and the Netherlands as examples because they're the ones I'm most familiar with.)

Whilst I don't disagree with your sentiments, the changes involved are enormous. From a purely
infrastructure point of view, most pavements in towns in .de and .nl are built wider and split for
cyclists and pedestrians. Trying to implement that in the UK would be both expensive and difficult.

Tied to this are the attitudes. Because these cycle paths have existed for such a long time, they
are well used and attitudes of the general population reflect that. You never find cars parked on
cycle paths and cyclists are treated with absolute courtesy by drivers. It's amazing the amount of
times I've stopped on the bike at the side of a junction and cars have braked to let me across in
front of them. Instilling that sort of attitude in car-centric countries would take years and not a
little propoganda.

"Chris Phillipo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Chris Phillipo <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <VjP0c.59736$ah.28321 @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
[email hidden] says...
>

theglobeandmail.comRTGAM.20040301.wbike0301Open ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> BNStory/National/
>
>
>

There's a couple of full time kooks in Canada who are the mikey V of helmet law activism. They
so far have only succeeded in draining their bank accounts. The major one, Avery something or
other doesn't even live in a province that has a mandatory helmet law. He's under the
impression that I should be thanking him for trying to protect my right to get a head injury.

Whether or not you agree with helmet laws, does anyone really hate

wearing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one enough to quit cycling (as the article quotes imply everyone in his area will do)? Either he
doesn't like biking very much, or perhaps he

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

an itchy scalp condition.

I have not met the person that would quit cycling for that reason. I have met a few that will ride
without a helmet and pay the fines if they get them and just write it off as the cost of enjoying
cycling. For guys who buy the high zoot helmets every year, the fines might be cheaper.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

I remember years ago when the helmet lawas came out in Canada. I had just moved here from the U.S.
for school. People argued that they should have the right to choose whether or not to wear a bucket
when operating a motorcycle. I even had a few riding partners refuse to do it. Well a couple of
pricey fines later, and a severe cut in the fun factore, yadayadayada, they were back on the rockets
with helmets to boot. Now it's a fashion statement to have the wildest colour scheme on the lids.

Point is, people [censored] about everything and this will blow over too.

As for me, I'm wearing the helmets whether I'm on the sled or motorcycle, if you want your brains on
the pavement go right ahead, just don't spill in front of me...

"TBF" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

theglobeandmail.comNationalOpen ↗

He's not stupid at all. Bike helmets are a joke, and anyone who thinks they save lives is severly
misguided. I wear one because it makes other riders nervous if I don't, and it keeps the sun off. A
helmet law is a minor inconvenience that certainly wouldn't stop me from riding, but it does
indicate a stopgap attitude towards road safety for cyclists.

g

"bomba" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Instilling that sort of attitude in car-centric countries would take years and not a little
propoganda.

Decades.

Pete