The Holy Gambit

Hallelujah I'm a believer! When it's long enough I can also do a Bobby
Charlton comb-over the baldy bits although I expect this would be blown
out straight when I'm going fast with my head down.

born again Jacob

I've just started Cyclism (nobody said how long your religion has to be
running before it's recognised) and if anybody wants to join me we can
make up (sorry- have handed down from the great Fauso Coppi) a set of
commandments the first of which I saw in a vision on the Rest and be
Thankful which was:

1: Thy head shall be uncovered except to protect it from weather or if
you really want to.

.....over to you for the other nine.

Father Robert

Nick Kew said:

I guess it was the association of cycling+religion that reminded
me of the Sikh exception to motorcycle helmet laws. Would a sudden
mass conversion to Sikh-ism be appropriate? Alas, it would
probably be unconvincing.

I claim an exception due to being a follower of Flying Spaghetti
Monster-ism.

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

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

Quoted message said:

Nick Kew said:

I guess it was the association of cycling+religion that reminded
me of the Sikh exception to motorcycle helmet laws. Would a sudden
mass conversion to Sikh-ism be appropriate? Alas, it would
probably be unconvincing.

I claim an exception due to being a follower of Flying Spaghetti
Monster-ism.

You mean you are a Pastafarian!
Graham

Nick Kew wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Since our Beloved Leader seems as keen to respect religious rights
as we were to respect human rights in the late 20th century, who
could argue against that?

Will you be able to get an exemption for unprovable, but sincerely held,
religious beliefs, but not for rational and sincerely held beliefs in the
efficacy of cycle helmets? If so, there will obviously be something wrong
with the law. If it is passed that is.
--
Chris

graham said:

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

Quoted message said:

I claim an exception due to being a follower of Flying Spaghetti
Monster-ism.

You mean you are a Pastafarian!

Ramen.

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

Jeremy Collins said:

Nick Kew said:

I guess it was the association of cycling+religion that reminded
me of the Sikh exception to motorcycle helmet laws. Would a sudden
mass conversion to Sikh-ism be appropriate? Alas, it would
probably be unconvincing.

I claim an exception due to being a follower of Flying Spaghetti
Monster-ism.

Have you been touched by His noodly appendage too?

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck
MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/
UKRA #1108 Level 2 UYB
Tripoli UK Member #9527 LSMR

Jeremy Collins said:

graham said:

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

Quoted message said:

I claim an exception due to being a follower of Flying Spaghetti
Monster-ism.

You mean you are a Pastafarian!

Ramen.

But doesn't that mean you have to stay stone cold soba?

Mind you, that is probably best for your noodle.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

BigRab said:

I've just started Cyclism (nobody said how long your religion has to be
running before it's recognised)

I think maybe it should be an officially recognised religion based on
number of recorded adherents. Given the silly campaign to "Jedi" recognised
as such during the last census, perhaps it's time we cycled about waving
coloured flourescent tubes around. We could use them to chop the heads off
all those Dark Side recumbenteers!

Graeme

Graeme Dods said:

I think maybe it should be an officially recognised religion based on
number of recorded adherents. Given the silly campaign to "Jedi" recognised
as such during the last census, perhaps it's time we cycled about waving
coloured flourescent tubes around. We could use them to chop the heads off
all those Dark Side recumbenteers!

Unless you lurk near an uphill stretch you won't be able to catch us
😄

"Bob"
--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

Graeme Dods said:

I think maybe it should be an officially recognised religion based on
number of recorded adherents. Given the silly campaign to "Jedi" recognised
as such during the last census,

The next census could be an appropriate target.

Also we could use some sensible way to express our docrtines.

It is an abomination unto Nuggan to cover the head in any manner
that may dull the senses to the infinite subtleties of His world
around you.

(Therefore a h***** is fine provided there is no risk that it might
restrict your senses, cause the head to overheat, or interfere
with the blood flow.)

It is an abomination unto Nuggan to subject the body to malign
pressure on any important pressure points.

[I expect an acupuncturist could explain how this works. I just
know I don't wear a wristwatch or a stiff collar, and have had a
terrible time finding sandals I can wear without giving me
backpain these last couple of years due to fashion putting
the straps too high up towards the ankles].

--
Nick Kew

In message <[email hidden]>

Graeme Dods said:

BigRab said:

I've just started Cyclism (nobody said how long your religion has to be
running before it's recognised)

I think maybe it should be an officially recognised religion based on
number of recorded adherents. Given the silly campaign to "Jedi" recognised
as such during the last census, perhaps it's time we cycled about waving
coloured flourescent tubes around. We could use them to chop the heads off
all those Dark Side recumbenteers!

Well Jedi's didn't seem to like helmeted people, Vader gets his h*lm*t
just after turning evil, and removes it in episode VI when he turns
back to the good side.
Also all those nasty storm troopers and clones were all h*lm*ted.

Martin.

--
According to the human genome project, humans are 50-60% bananas.
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

Nick Kew said:

This could be of interest in a Martlewed UK or to some of our
friends from lands without our tradition of (relative) freedom.

Here in New Zealand, where we indeed lack certain freedoms, one Green
MP who is a Rastafarian with impressive dreads has a bike helmet
exemption as there are no helmets that will fit over his hair. I know
of a few others who have 'medical' exemptions, claiming headaches or
skin irritation from wearing a plastic hat.

The official story is that one can get such an exemption on medical,
religious or other reasonable grounds, though what those other
reasonable grounds might be has never been disclosed. I've considered
applying for an exemption based on the distraction and discomfort of a
lid, but I doubt that would be sufficient.

(By the way: Hello UKians! I'm not sure why, but net spaces dominated
by UK nationals often seem to have a nice balance. Big enough to have
a decent discussion but not excessively anonymous or agressive.)

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Nick Kew said:

This could be of interest in a Martlewed UK or to some of our
friends from lands without our tradition of (relative) freedom.

Here in New Zealand, where we indeed lack certain freedoms, one Green
MP who is a Rastafarian with impressive dreads has a bike helmet
exemption as there are no helmets that will fit over his hair. I know
of a few others who have 'medical' exemptions, claiming headaches or
skin irritation from wearing a plastic hat.

The official story is that one can get such an exemption on medical,
religious or other reasonable grounds, though what those other
reasonable grounds might be has never been disclosed. I've considered
applying for an exemption based on the distraction and discomfort of a
lid, but I doubt that would be sufficient.

Try for an exemption based on the fact that the available scientific
research shows at best no safety benefit from helmets, and at worst a
substantial safety deficit - and warn them that if they force you to
take increased risk (by wearing a helmet) and are subsequently injured,
you will sue.

You'll need to prepare a very clear and carfully researched document with
references to the scientific research material; there are several people
here who could help you with that. A successful legal challenge in New
Zealand's helmet laws on the basis that helmets don't work would be
helpful to us here in preventing the introduction of a local equivalent.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
;; knowledge increaseth sorrow.." - Ecclesiastes 1:18

I submit that on or about 28 Aug 2005 17:15:02 -0700, the person known
to the court as [email hidden] made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

The official story is that one can get such an exemption on medical,
religious or other reasonable grounds, though what those other
reasonable grounds might be has never been disclosed. I've considered
applying for an exemption based on the distraction and discomfort of a
lid, but I doubt that would be sufficient.

I believe that Peter Keller (of Wellington hospital) has managed this,
though I could be misremembering. Send me an email (reply-to is
valid) and I'll pass it on to him.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The official story is that one can get such an exemption on medical,
religious or other reasonable grounds, though what those other
reasonable grounds might be has never been disclosed. I've considered
applying for an exemption based on the distraction and discomfort of a
lid, but I doubt that would be sufficient.

Try for an exemption based on the fact that the available scientific
research shows at best no safety benefit from helmets, and at worst a
substantial safety deficit - and warn them that if they force you to
take increased risk (by wearing a helmet) and are subsequently injured,
you will sue.

You'll need to prepare a very clear and carfully researched document with
references to the scientific research material; there are several people
here who could help you with that. A successful legal challenge in New
Zealand's helmet laws on the basis that helmets don't work would be
helpful to us here in preventing the introduction of a local equivalent.

That's a road already travelled by some, Patrick Morgan that I know of
in particular, without much success. The general legal opinion seems
to be that "helmets don't work" is not reasonable grounds to not wear
one: he was told that whether helmets work is something to bother the
government with, not the exempting authority (Land Transport NZ now I
think) or the courts. It's probably worth another go by a suitably
energetic group or individual, and I agree it would certainly help you
Brits and the Canadians out.

Just zis Guy said:

I submit that on or about 28 Aug 2005 17:15:02 -0700, the person known
to the court as [email hidden] made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

The official story is that one can get such an exemption on medical,
religious or other reasonable grounds, though what those other
reasonable grounds might be has never been disclosed. I've considered
applying for an exemption based on the distraction and discomfort of a
lid, but I doubt that would be sufficient.

I believe that Peter Keller (of Wellington hospital) has managed this,
though I could be misremembering. Send me an email (reply-to is
valid) and I'll pass it on to him.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Peter Keller doesn't have an exemption, though a few others do. I've
had some contact with him, and you too Guy, through a couple of mailing
lists. I think that it was possible, in the early days of the law, to
get an exemption on grounds of discomfort, but lately a medical
certificate or religious reason seems to be neccesary.

I know that I could get an exemption by convincing a friendly doctor to
write me a note saying that helmets bring on a headache or something
similar, but I in fact don't have any problems with helmets that I'd
class as medical, so I'd rather not go that way. I think Peter feels
the same, which is why he hasn't applied for an exemption either.

In message <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The official story is that one can get such an exemption on medical,
religious or other reasonable grounds, though what those other
reasonable grounds might be has never been disclosed. I've considered
applying for an exemption based on the distraction and discomfort of a
lid, but I doubt that would be sufficient.

Try for an exemption based on the fact that the available scientific
research shows at best no safety benefit from helmets, and at worst a
substantial safety deficit - and warn them that if they force you to
take increased risk (by wearing a helmet) and are subsequently injured,
you will sue.

You'll need to prepare a very clear and carfully researched document with
references to the scientific research material; there are several people
here who could help you with that. A successful legal challenge in New
Zealand's helmet laws on the basis that helmets don't work would be
helpful to us here in preventing the introduction of a local equivalent.

That's a road already travelled by some, Patrick Morgan that I know of
in particular, without much success. The general legal opinion seems
to be that "helmets don't work" is not reasonable grounds to not wear
one: he was told that whether helmets work is something to bother the
government with, not the exempting authority (Land Transport NZ now I
think) or the courts. It's probably worth another go by a suitably
energetic group or individual, and I agree it would certainly help you
Brits and the Canadians out.

Although "helmets don't work" may not be a legal argument for not wearing
one, I would have thought that "compulsary helmets represent a safety hazard"
would be.

Martin.

--
According to the human genome project, humans are 50-60% bananas.
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Dann

(') said:

In message <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

> The official story is that one can get such an exemption on
> medical, religious or other reasonable grounds, though what those
> other
> reasonable grounds might be has never been disclosed. I've
> considered applying for an exemption based on the distraction and
> discomfort of a lid, but I doubt that would be sufficient.

Try for an exemption based on the fact that the available scientific
research shows at best no safety benefit from helmets, and at worst
a substantial safety deficit - and warn them that if they force you
to take increased risk (by wearing a helmet) and are subsequently
injured, you will sue.

You'll need to prepare a very clear and carfully researched document
with references to the scientific research material; there are
several people here who could help you with that. A successful legal
challenge in New Zealand's helmet laws on the basis that helmets
don't work would be helpful to us here in preventing the
introduction of a local equivalent.

That's a road already travelled by some, Patrick Morgan that I know of
in particular, without much success. The general legal opinion seems
to be that "helmets don't work" is not reasonable grounds to not wear
one: he was told that whether helmets work is something to bother the
government with, not the exempting authority (Land Transport NZ now I
think) or the courts. It's probably worth another go by a suitably
energetic group or individual, and I agree it would certainly help you
Brits and the Canadians out.

Although "helmets don't work" may not be a legal argument for not
wearing one, I would have thought that "compulsary helmets represent a
safety hazard" would be.

Yup: that's the point I was trying to make.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
;; languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their
;; pockets for new vocabulary -- James D. Nicoll