https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20250324-vingegaard-reveals-concussion- from-paris-nice-fallConcussion are serious business compared to most broken bones.
On 3/24/2025 12:04 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 3/24/2025 10:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20250324-vingegaard-reveals-concussion-Concussion are serious business compared to most broken bones.
from-paris-nice-fall
Collarbones generally heal fine and most others. A broken hip
certainly more to worry about than most. Concussions are an unknown in
my book and in many medical doctors. The left over effects are not
always apparent at first and hard to really pin down. The brain in
complicated and we see this in football over the years and boxing.
In some way I don't blame a cyclist for walking away depending on the
situation. Certainly from competitive cycling but even just riding in
general as you can fall over bad just barely moving.
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the
scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
On 3/24/2025 1:18 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 3/24/2025 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2025 12:04 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Your hatred for helmets is well known. I shall ignore that and the you
On 3/24/2025 10:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20250324-vingegaard-reveals-concussion- >>>>> from-paris-nice-fallConcussion are serious business compared to most broken bones.
Collarbones generally heal fine and most others. A broken hip
certainly more to worry about than most. Concussions are an unknown
in my book and in many medical doctors. The left over effects are not
always apparent at first and hard to really pin down. The brain in
complicated and we see this in football over the years and boxing.
In some way I don't blame a cyclist for walking away depending on the
situation. Certainly from competitive cycling but even just riding in
general as you can fall over bad just barely moving.
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is
significantly higher than other activities'. Society would do better
by stopping the scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing
motorists or pedestrians to wear helmets.
do as you want. Wear a helmet or don't wear one but please quit
preaching it as if you are the only game in town.
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion
with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as
well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should >always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
On Mon Mar 24 10:35:26 2025 AMuzi wrote:
https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20250324-vingegaard-reveals-concussion-from-paris-nice-fall
I will repeat my previous recommendation. I sustained a serious concussion that caused brain injuries severe enough to cause siezures that took 2 years to cause enough consternation in my friends that they got me to a competent neurologist. Most peopledon't even know when you're having seizures and the local neurologists I consulted were not competent with serious concussions.
Finally my cop friend and his nurse wife who recognized my seisures as such got my GP to agree to recommend me to a Stanford Professor who knew the symptoms and treatment though it took almost a year to work out the proper medication plan.from brain damage anyway so while a good theory was not a practical safety limit.
The foam used and recommended by an international standard is FAR too rigid to protect you from a concussion. Originally Bell Helmets reasoned that the danger from hitting your head was fracturing your skull. Hitting your head that hard would kill you
The UCI expanded on this by simply calculating how large a helmet could be without interfearing with your vision and set an international standard for helmets that was in practical terms no better than the older Bell standard.wearing a helmet that doesn't correctly allow deceleration from a head strike can caused even more damage than I recieved.
While Trek owned and financed Bontrager, Keith started thinking of this problem. Most injuries to cyclists that are serious are from concussions. Broaken bones generally heal and scraped skin regrows but brain damage from hitting your head hard while
I have no memory of discussing my injury with Keith, but perhaps I did since I know him.they are not of the same quality as the Trek versions.
In any case, he designed the Wavecell helmet that used a 3D printing process which is designed to reduce the deceleration rate of a head blow from a fall and have used them since he began making them. Disconnected from Trek he is still making them but
I do not believe that I have struck my head since my recovery hard enough to cause injury but I certainly have hit my head upon occassion. Wavecell seems to self-heel marks and there are none on my present helmet.made that a car could hit him and his head might be involved.
I cannot attest to the efficacy of the Wavecell helmets but if nothing else it is better than the foam plastic which provides essentially no protections from a hard head strike.
So, unless you're Frank who has never hit his head because he rides slow enough to never lose control, anyone that wears a helmet should use this type. Of course Catrike doesn't have to worry since he cannot fall off. Though I suppose a case could be
On Mon Mar 24 10:35:26 2025 AMuzi wrote:don't even know when you're having seizures and the local neurologists I consulted were not competent with serious concussions.
https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20250324-vingegaard-reveals-concussion-from-paris-nice-fall
I will repeat my previous recommendation. I sustained a serious concussion that caused brain injuries severe enough to cause siezures that took 2 years to cause enough consternation in my friends that they got me to a competent neurologist. Most people
Finally my cop friend and his nurse wife who recognized my seisures as such got my GP to agree to recommend me to a Stanford Professor who knew the symptoms and treatment though it took almost a year to work out the proper medication plan.from brain damage anyway so while a good theory was not a practical safety limit.
The foam used and recommended by an international standard is FAR too rigid to protect you from a concussion. Originally Bell Helmets reasoned that the danger from hitting your head was fracturing your skull. Hitting your head that hard would kill you
The UCI expanded on this by simply calculating how large a helmet could be without interfearing with your vision and set an international standard for helmets that was in practical terms no better than the older Bell standard.wearing a helmet that doesn't correctly allow deceleration from a head strike can caused even more damage than I recieved.
While Trek owned and financed Bontrager, Keith started thinking of this problem. Most injuries to cyclists that are serious are from concussions. Broaken bones generally heal and scraped skin regrows but brain damage from hitting your head hard while
I have no memory of discussing my injury with Keith, but perhaps I did since I know him.they are not of the same quality as the Trek versions.
In any case, he designed the Wavecell helmet that used a 3D printing process which is designed to reduce the deceleration rate of a head blow from a fall and have used them since he began making them. Disconnected from Trek he is still making them but
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:33 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>people don't even know when you're having seizures and the local neurologists I consulted were not competent with serious concussions.
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 10:35:26 2025 AMuzi wrote:
https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20250324-vingegaard-reveals-concussion-from-paris-nice-fall
I will repeat my previous recommendation. I sustained a serious concussion that caused brain injuries severe enough to cause siezures that took 2 years to cause enough consternation in my friends that they got me to a competent neurologist. Most
from brain damage anyway so while a good theory was not a practical safety limit.
Finally my cop friend and his nurse wife who recognized my seisures as such got my GP to agree to recommend me to a Stanford Professor who knew the symptoms and treatment though it took almost a year to work out the proper medication plan.
The foam used and recommended by an international standard is FAR too rigid to protect you from a concussion. Originally Bell Helmets reasoned that the danger from hitting your head was fracturing your skull. Hitting your head that hard would kill you
wearing a helmet that doesn't correctly allow deceleration from a head strike can caused even more damage than I recieved.
The UCI expanded on this by simply calculating how large a helmet could be without interfearing with your vision and set an international standard for helmets that was in practical terms no better than the older Bell standard.
While Trek owned and financed Bontrager, Keith started thinking of this problem. Most injuries to cyclists that are serious are from concussions. Broaken bones generally heal and scraped skin regrows but brain damage from hitting your head hard while
they are not of the same quality as the Trek versions.
I have no memory of discussing my injury with Keith, but perhaps I did since I know him.
In any case, he designed the Wavecell helmet that used a 3D printing process which is designed to reduce the deceleration rate of a head blow from a fall and have used them since he began making them. Disconnected from Trek he is still making them but
made that a car could hit him and his head might be involved.
I do not believe that I have struck my head since my recovery hard enough to cause injury but I certainly have hit my head upon occassion. Wavecell seems to self-heel marks and there are none on my present helmet.
I cannot attest to the efficacy of the Wavecell helmets but if nothing else it is better than the foam plastic which provides essentially no protections from a hard head strike.
So, unless you're Frank who has never hit his head because he rides slow enough to never lose control, anyone that wears a helmet should use this type. Of course Catrike doesn't have to worry since he cannot fall off. Though I suppose a case could be
I've been riding bicycles for 75+ years and I've never worn a helmet.I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
It wasn't because some narcissistic wussy advised against them. I put
one on my head in a bike shop once and quickly took it off.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 3/24/2025 4:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:people don't even know when you're having seizures and the local neurologists I consulted were not competent with serious concussions.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:33 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 10:35:26 2025 AMuzi wrote:
https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20250324-vingegaard-reveals-concussion-from-paris-nice-fall
I will repeat my previous recommendation. I sustained a serious concussion that caused brain injuries severe enough to cause siezures that took 2 years to cause enough consternation in my friends that they got me to a competent neurologist. Most
you from brain damage anyway so while a good theory was not a practical safety limit.
Finally my cop friend and his nurse wife who recognized my seisures as such got my GP to agree to recommend me to a Stanford Professor who knew the symptoms and treatment though it took almost a year to work out the proper medication plan.
The foam used and recommended by an international standard is FAR too rigid to protect you from a concussion. Originally Bell Helmets reasoned that the danger from hitting your head was fracturing your skull. Hitting your head that hard would kill
wearing a helmet that doesn't correctly allow deceleration from a head strike can caused even more damage than I recieved.
The UCI expanded on this by simply calculating how large a helmet could be without interfearing with your vision and set an international standard for helmets that was in practical terms no better than the older Bell standard.
While Trek owned and financed Bontrager, Keith started thinking of this problem. Most injuries to cyclists that are serious are from concussions. Broaken bones generally heal and scraped skin regrows but brain damage from hitting your head hard while
but they are not of the same quality as the Trek versions.
I have no memory of discussing my injury with Keith, but perhaps I did since I know him.
In any case, he designed the Wavecell helmet that used a 3D printing process which is designed to reduce the deceleration rate of a head blow from a fall and have used them since he began making them. Disconnected from Trek he is still making them
made that a car could hit him and his head might be involved.
I do not believe that I have struck my head since my recovery hard enough to cause injury but I certainly have hit my head upon occassion. Wavecell seems to self-heel marks and there are none on my present helmet.
I cannot attest to the efficacy of the Wavecell helmets but if nothing else it is better than the foam plastic which provides essentially no protections from a hard head strike.
So, unless you're Frank who has never hit his head because he rides slow enough to never lose control, anyone that wears a helmet should use this type. Of course Catrike doesn't have to worry since he cannot fall off. Though I suppose a case could be
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
I've been riding bicycles for 75+ years and I've never worn a helmet.
It wasn't because some narcissistic wussy advised against them. I put
one on my head in a bike shop once and quickly took it off.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might
be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?
I haven't seen Keith since before I was injured so he wasn't marketing them under his name at that time.
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic >sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's >available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK bike >personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's
common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a
serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false. >>
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet �debates� as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have such intrenched >positions.
Roger Merriman
On Mon Mar 24 17:54:27 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
Keith Bontrager had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the
Wavecel Helmet and has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the helmets. >>
Wavecel was founded by Michael Bottlang, PhD and Dr. Steve Madey.
https://wavecel.com/about-us/
They published a white paper in 2018 describing their research and
suggestions for new helmet design.
https://wavecel.com/wp-content/uploads/accidentanalysispublication.pdf
- The abstract states "rotational acceleration and the associated brain
injury risk can be significantly reduced by the cellular WAVECEL concept
or a MIPS slip liner."
- The Disclosure states "Some of the authors (MB, SMM) are co-inventors
of CELL technology described in this manuscript, have filed patents, and
have a financial interest in the company that owns this technology.
These authors (MB, SMM) are founders and co-directors of the Legacy
Biomechanics Laboratory. Several of the authors (EB, AR, ST, SMM,
MB) are affiliated with the Legacy Health System, which was a partial
funder of this research."
No Bontrager.
Bontragers name is associated with it for the simple reason that Trek
bought the technology and sells bike accessories under the Bontrager
trademark. The differences between Trek and Bontrager Wavecel models are
mostly aesthetic. Some models run cooler and or lighter than others, but
this isn't exclusive to trek or bontrager. In fact, there are Circuit
and Stavros models for both Trek and Bontrager which are identical
except for color choices.
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/equipment/bike-accessories/bike-helmets/wavecel-helmets/c/E399/
yeah yeah....we know, Kieth told you personally that he designed the
helmet after he talked to you about your injury, right?
Thanks for that piece of information. I might ask why you didn't inform us before when I told everyone about the Wavecel?
Was it because you were too busy telling everyone that it was a useless piece of shit?
I haven't seen Keith since before I was injured so he wasn't marketing them under his name at that time.
Now that you found information proving me wrong suddenly they are the cat's pajamas? Or are you still of the opinion that they are a piece of shit because I am recommending them?
But since Trek stopped marketing them they are not being marketed. Or maybe you have some more informtion on the Spector that I cannot find?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use >>brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic >>sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >>common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's >>available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that >>helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >>serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false. >>
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm
" Because bicycling continues to grow in popularity,* primarily among
U.S. adults, examining the strategies that mitigate the risk for TBI
is important. CDC analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury >Surveillance System-All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP) to determine the
incidence of EDs for bicycle-related TBIs during 2009�2018. An
estimated 596,972 ED visits for bicycle-related TBIs occurred in the
United States during the study period."
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK bike
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>> helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>>> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >>> common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >>> serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false. >>>
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet “debates” as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have such intrenched
positions.
Roger Merriman
I've told this story before but once again.
When I was working around oil well drilling rigs the word came down
from the Drilling Company - "When you come back from break be sure
you are wearing a "Hard Hat"(i.e. helmet) or don't bother to come
back". And you know? Everybody came back with a hard hat and there was
never a mention, good, bad or indifferent, whether people wanted to
were a helmet, or not, or any of the other arguments I hear in
bicycle circles.
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly
higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the
scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of control when they fall.hesitation. So Saturday I will be able to go out on a ride with my friends again for the fist time in 2 months. I will be wearing a helmet whether you think that they are necessary or not because I am living proof that at least they do some good. And I
I just succeeded with my first ride in two months. I rode around a parking lot and there was a straight tar line that I was able to follow. I even managed to dodge a dog. So I got out on the street and rode back home around four turns without
I also bought a pair of American made leather riding gloves with knit backs. I forgot how good those felt. I can actually break a fall with my hands again. The Chinese look alikes tore to pieces on a gentle fall.
Am 25.03.2025 um 11:11 schrieb John B.:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a
fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good
since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in
the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of
avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with
not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals,
I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that
advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't
use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the
helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes
we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and
what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad
decisions, but it's
common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good
data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet
debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or
implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies
that bicycling is a
serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those
notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious
traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's
contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts.
Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than
pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over
the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked
countless times.
bike
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely
introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet “debates” as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have
such intrenched
positions.
Roger Merriman
I've told this story before but once again.
When I was working around oil well drilling rigs the word
came down
from the Drilling Company - "When you come back from
break be sure
you are wearing a "Hard Hat"(i.e. helmet) or don't bother
to come
back". And you know? Everybody came back with a hard hat
and there was
never a mention, good, bad or indifferent, whether people
wanted to
were a helmet, or not, or any of the other arguments I
hear in
bicycle circles.
How many people get paid to go bicycling? Most people cycle
voluntarily, or stop cycling voluntarily.
What is the cost to society if people "don't bother to come
back" (as hapened in Australia)?
Why did the "don't bother to come back unless you wear a
seat belt" not work in the USA?
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK bike
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>> helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>>> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >>> common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >>> serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false. >>>
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet “debates” as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have such intrenched
positions.
Roger Merriman
I've told this story before but once again.
When I was working around oil well drilling rigs the word came down
from the Drilling Company - "When you come back from break be sure
you are wearing a "Hard Hat"(i.e. helmet) or don't bother to come
back". And you know? Everybody came back with a hard hat and there was
never a mention, good, bad or indifferent, whether people wanted to
were a helmet, or not, or any of the other arguments I hear in
bicycle circles.
On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 11:11 schrieb John B.:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a
fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good
since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in
the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of
avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with
not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals,
I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that
advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't
use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the
helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes
we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and
what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad
decisions, but it's
common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good
data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet
debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or
implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies
that bicycling is a
serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those
notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious
traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's
contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts.
Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than
pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over
the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked
countless times.
bike
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely
introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet �debates� as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have
such intrenched
positions.
Roger Merriman
I've told this story before but once again.
When I was working around oil well drilling rigs the word
came down
from the Drilling Company -� "When you come back from
break be sure
you are wearing a "Hard Hat"(i.e. helmet) or don't bother
to come
back". And you know? Everybody came back with a hard hat
and there was
never a mention,� good, bad or indifferent, whether people
wanted to
were a helmet, or not, or any of the other� arguments I
hear in
bicycle circles.
How many people get paid to go bicycling? Most people cycle
voluntarily, or stop cycling voluntarily.
What is the cost to society if people "don't bother to come
back" (as hapened in Australia)?
Why did the "don't bother to come back unless you wear a
seat belt" not work in the USA?
In a perfect world, I would probably wear a seat belt when
driving. But since the State made it mandatory, which
naturally engenders defiance, I just restrict myself to
exempt autos and drive without.
On 3/24/2025 9:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly >>> higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the
scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than
you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster
riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of
control when they fall.
with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the
group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more.
It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people
with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Hah! Another ignorant statment from Mr. Tricycle Rider!
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
I suspect that in the USA, the vast majority of bicyclists wear
helmets.
As usual, you're wrong. But then, you belong to a group that claims that >Trump won the vast majority the popular vote!
The problem may be ignorance of the definition of "vast." Look it up.
(I know. You won't trust any definition, because dictionaries may be >published by the evil left wing.)
I don't know why that bothers Krygowski so much. It seems to
me that wearing one does no harm.
:-) Says the man who has told us he never wears a helmet! He's so
obsessed with me that he'll even argue against his own position to
dispute me. I think he needs psychological therapy - but he'd be too
afraid to talk to a therapist.
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion
with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as
well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should
always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
Frank, you deo not run, do you? The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically for running.
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
On Mon Mar 24 17:02:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might
be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
Btain injuries are among the most serious consequences of bicycle accidents and include concussions, moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries and post-concussive syndrome.
But Frank tells us that these injuries do not exist in his universe.
On 3/24/2025 5:20 PM, cyclintom wrote:
So, unless you're Frank who has never hit his head because he rides
slow enough to never lose control...
Well, that's almost true. The fastest I've ever ridden was 54 mph. My
speed was limited because I was getting too close to the car in front
of me.
So the rest of my riding is indeed slower. And I (essentially) never
do lose control. I fell for the third time ever (that is, a moving
on-road fall) a couple years ago. A huge dog hiding in some shrubbery sprinted out and barreled into my front wheel. I went over the bars
and did hit my head. The cotton cycling cap I was wearing must have
saved my life!
Based on that, I think every rider should always wear a cotton cycling
cap. They should pass a law! ;-)
On 3/25/2025 7:52 AM, John B. wrote:
As I've said many times before, I haven't been the U.S. for many years ...
Perhaps you should come visit to refresh your knowledge.
But do people in other parts of the world avoid playing baseball or in
an English "colony", Cricket, because one must wear a helmet, or U.S.
football. or riding to the hounds or all the various activities that
require a helmet".
John, I live two blocks from a Village football field - the old high
school field - and an adjacent flat grassy field. Both are used by young
guys and kids for a variety of "pick up" sports, including touch football.
Guys playing touch football do not wear helmets. There is no mandate,
and apparently the guys judge that the risk of serious head injury is
low. I played touch football on an intramural team in college, and none
of us wore helmets.
Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest fear >mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is huge, far
worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data showing that's false.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 01:36:02 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion >>> with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as >>> well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should >>> always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
+1
I would never use a helmet. Not in this climate. It's too hot,
my hair would become pudding.
Frank, you deo not run, do you? The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically for running.
God ? LOL.
Our "system" was "designed" to walk on all fours. Divide the
weight among 4 limbs.
Then tens of thousands of years ago a right-wing monkey
decided to show the others it was bigger and better and stood up. Put
it on social media and it became a "thing". Everyone wanted to be
"bigger and better".
Half the others voted to make it mandatory. And it still is...
Which is why knees and feet wear out so much and people
complain of lumbago.
[]'s
On 3/24/2025 9:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion >>> with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as >>> well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should >>> always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
Frank, you deo not run, do you?
On occasion I do, usually with some reluctance.
The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically
for running.
If God had meant for us to be running, he would not have given us
bicycles. ;-)
While you CAN fall completely out of control it is not the case with
any experienced runners or even speed walkers.
It's also not the case for me on a bicycle. Only three moving on-road
falls in over 50 years of riding. Zero head injuries. Most avid cyclists never ever hit their head, and certainly never hard enough to induce
brain injury.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 01:36:02 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion >>> with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as >>> well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should >>> always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
+1
I would never use a helmet. Not in this climate. It's too hot,
my hair would become pudding.
Frank, you deo not run, do you? The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically for running.
God ? LOL.
Our "system" was "designed" to walk on all fours. Divide the
weight among 4 limbs.
Then tens of thousands of years ago a right-wing monkey
decided to show the others it was bigger and better and stood up. Put
it on social media and it became a "thing". Everyone wanted to be
"bigger and better".
Half the others voted to make it mandatory. And it still is...
Which is why knees and feet wear out so much and people
complain of lumbago.
[]'s
On 3/25/2025 11:07 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 01:36:02 GMT, cyclintom
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should
be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've
backed up my opinion
with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty
"leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving"
apply exactly as
well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that
all runners should
always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed
your hatred for
running helmets.
+1
I would never use a helmet. Not in this climate. It's
too hot,
my hair would become pudding.
Frank, you deo not run, do you? The entire human skeletal
structure is designed by God specifically for running.
God ? LOL.
Our "system" was "designed" to walk on all fours.
Divide the
weight among 4 limbs.
Then tens of thousands of years ago a right-wing monkey
decided to show the others it was bigger and better and
stood up. Put
it on social media and it became a "thing". Everyone
wanted to be
"bigger and better".
Half the others voted to make it mandatory. And it
still is...
Which is why knees and feet wear out so much and people
complain of lumbago.
[]'s
I'm about as far as one can get from creationism or
"intelligent" design, but there is a bit of a gap in the
fossil record for the nuchal ligament. It's been observed in
Homo Erectus fossils, but no previous hominids, and
interestingly is on several other mammals very far removed
from Humans. For the uninitiated, the nuchal ligament
attaches the base of the skull to C7 and helps keep you head
steady, especially while running. Mammals that run well have
a nuchal ligament, Mammals that don't run well do not.
Cats, dogs, deer, horses, rabbits...all have a nuchal ligament.
Pigs, sheep, primates other than humans don't have one.
The question is how H. Erectus made the 'leap' to running
ability, showing not only the nuchal ligament, but other
developments removed from our evolutionary ancestoers such
as shoulder muscular structure detaced from the skull, hip
structure to support larger Gluteus Maximus, Achilles tendon
elongation...all help humans to become more efficient runners..
Curiously, there is also a massive gap in the fossil record
for helmets.
Add xx to reply
Am 25.03.2025 um 15:29 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 3/24/2025 9:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should
be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've
backed up my opinion
with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty
"leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving"
apply exactly as
well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that
all runners should
always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed
your hatred for
running helmets.
Frank, you deo not run, do you?
On occasion I do, usually with some reluctance.
The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God
specifically for running.
If God had meant for us to be running, he would not have
given us bicycles. ;-)
While you CAN fall completely out of control it is not
the case with any experienced runners or even speed walkers.
It's also not the case for me on a bicycle. Only three
moving on-road falls in over 50 years of riding. Zero head
injuries. Most avid cyclists never ever hit their head,
and certainly never hard enough to induce brain injury.
Attention: the reflexes keeping our heads away from the
ground are strongly reduced by old age and by inebriation. I
sincerely plan to start wearing a bicycle helmet from age 80
onwards and not to ride an upright bicycle when drunk (on
the recumbent, the distance to ground is halved) ;-)
Rolf
On 3/25/2025 7:52 AM, John B. wrote:
As I've said many times before, I haven't been the U.S. for many
years ...
Perhaps you should come visit to refresh your knowledge.
But do people in other parts of the world avoid playing baseball or in
an English "colony", Cricket, because one must wear a helmet, or U.S.
football. or riding to the hounds or all the various activities that
require a helmet".
John, I live two blocks from a Village football field - the old high
school field - and an adjacent flat grassy field. Both are used by young
guys and kids for a variety of "pick up" sports, including touch football.
Guys playing touch football do not wear helmets. There is no mandate,
and apparently the guys judge that the risk of serious head injury is
low. I played touch football on an intramural team in college, and none
of us wore helmets.
Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest fear mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is huge, far
worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data showing that's false.
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
Am 25.03.2025 um 15:29 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 3/24/2025 9:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my
opinion
with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply
exactly as
well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners
should
always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
Frank, you deo not run, do you?
On occasion I do, usually with some reluctance.
The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically
for running.
If God had meant for us to be running, he would not have given us
bicycles. ;-)
While you CAN fall completely out of control it is not the case with
any experienced runners or even speed walkers.
It's also not the case for me on a bicycle. Only three moving on-road
falls in over 50 years of riding. Zero head injuries. Most avid
cyclists never ever hit their head, and certainly never hard enough to
induce brain injury.
Attention: the reflexes keeping our heads away from the ground are
strongly reduced by old age and by inebriation.
I sincerely plan to
start wearing a bicycle helmet from age 80 onwards and not to ride an
upright bicycle when drunk (on the recumbent, the distance to ground is halved) ;-)
On 3/25/2025 10:43 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 15:29 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 3/24/2025 9:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski� wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should
be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've
backed up my opinion
with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty
"leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving"
apply exactly as
well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that
all runners should
always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed
your hatred for
running helmets.
Frank, you deo not run, do you?
On occasion I do, usually with some reluctance.
The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God
specifically for running.
If God had meant for us to be running, he would not have
given us bicycles.� ;-)
While you CAN fall completely out of control it is not
the case with any experienced runners or even speed walkers.
It's also not the case for me on a bicycle. Only three
moving on-road falls in over 50 years of riding. Zero head
injuries. Most avid cyclists never ever hit their head,
and certainly never hard enough to induce brain injury.
Attention: the reflexes keeping our heads away from the
ground are strongly reduced by old age and by inebriation. I
sincerely plan to start wearing a bicycle helmet from age 80
onwards and not to ride an upright bicycle when drunk (on
the recumbent, the distance to ground is halved) ;-)
Rolf
Nice risk assessment!
Personally, I've walked away from more serious auto wrecks
than from bicycle crashes so, for me at any rate, cycling is
safer.
Am 25.03.2025 um 15:29 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 3/24/2025 9:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski� wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion >>>> with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as >>>> well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should >>>> always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
Frank, you deo not run, do you?
On occasion I do, usually with some reluctance.
The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically
for running.
If God had meant for us to be running, he would not have given us
bicycles.� ;-)
While you CAN fall completely out of control it is not the case with
any experienced runners or even speed walkers.
It's also not the case for me on a bicycle. Only three moving on-road
falls in over 50 years of riding. Zero head injuries. Most avid cyclists
never ever hit their head, and certainly never hard enough to induce
brain injury.
Attention: the reflexes keeping our heads away from the ground are
strongly reduced by old age and by inebriation. I sincerely plan to
start wearing a bicycle helmet from age 80 onwards and not to ride an
upright bicycle when drunk (on the recumbent, the distance to ground is >halved) ;-)
Rolf
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious
traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's
contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts.
Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than
pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data
over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-
Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-
Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-
statistics-may-surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-
safe-while-biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-
Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of
this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are
not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to
show the use of seat belts.
On 3/24/2025 9:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly >>> higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the
scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than
you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster
riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of
control when they fall.
with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the
group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people
with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
But telling us that you;ve ridden 54 mph as if it is a common event
is pure bullshit because at that speed everyonbe begines to worry
about crashing.
On 3/25/2025 9:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2025 9:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:The older I get the faster I get at riding slow. After my crash last May
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski� wrote:First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly >>>> higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the >>>> scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than
you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster
riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of
control when they fall.
typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up
with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at
similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the
group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people
with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
and broken collarbone and 2 metacarpals on my hand, I take a bit
different approach. Riding will never be quite the same as it was and I
fear gravel, loose rock, and I am clumsy to boot.
i use to take turns faster and be less worried about things but not now.
The problem around here is that the chip seal roads are generally ok but
at intersections loose gravel gets piled up. I had a brother deacon of
mine wipe on loose gravel like this as did I 10 years ago. He had to
have a broken hip pinned and I did too. Lucky for me it was not as bad
as it could be.
Oh yes I will wear a helmet they don't bother me at all and it is a
great place to hand my review helmet mirror.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Am 25.03.2025 um 17:17 schrieb cyclintom:+1
But telling us that you;ve ridden 54 mph as if it is a common event
is pure bullshit because at that speed everyonbe begines to worry
about crashing.
When I was young, I rode down a road on the motorbike at 80 mph (with protective clothing and helmet); I noticed that the "small bend at the
bottom of the hill" was easily taken at 60 mph.
Two years later I rode down that hill on the Mountainbike, and I knew
there was no major risk doing that with a max speed of just above 50 mph.
Several years later on the recumbent bike I preferred going a different
route ("chickend out") because I had stopped motorbiking. It's all in
the head.
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking >>>
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to show the use
of seat belts.
Am 25.03.2025 um 17:25 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:02:06 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking >>>>>
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message. >>>>>
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>>> either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to show the use >>> of seat belts.
You could prove that helmets don't always prevent head injuries, but
not that they don't sometimes do it. Proving a negative is difficult
task.
Correct. At worst I can say "will not help on average" but I won't be
able to say "will never help and never hurt" or "will sometimes help and >sometimes hurt really bad".
But what should the consequences be for me: if it sometimes helps and >sometimes hurts, how should I ensure it helps me instead of hurting me?
On Tue Mar 25 08:39:45 2025 AMuzi wrote:hesitation. So Saturday I will be able to go out on a ride with my friends again for the fist time in 2 months. I will be wearing a helmet whether you think that they are necessary or not because I am living proof that at least they do some good. And I
On 3/24/2025 8:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly >> >> higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the
scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of control when they fall.
I just succeeded with my first ride in two months. I rode around a parking lot and there was a straight tar line that I was able to follow. I even managed to dodge a dog. So I got out on the street and rode back home around four turns without
I also bought a pair of American made leather riding gloves with knit backs. I forgot how good those felt. I can actually break a fall with my hands again. The Chinese look alikes tore to pieces on a gentle fall.
US made cycling gloves? Really? What brand?
Aero/Tech. They came with a Made In America tag and they fit American hands! The gloves are real leather and the palms are double thick.
On Tue Mar 25 08:39:45 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 3/24/2025 8:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I also bought a pair of American made leather riding gloves with knit backs. I forgot how good those felt. I can actually break a fall with my hands again. The Chinese look alikes tore to pieces on a gentle fall.
US made cycling gloves? Really? What brand?
Aero/Tech. They came with a Made In America tag and they fit American hands! The gloves are real leather and the palms are double thick.
On 3/24/2025 1:18 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 3/24/2025 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2025 12:04 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Your hatred for helmets is well known.
On 3/24/2025 10:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20250324-vingegaard-reveals-concussion- >>>>> from-paris-nice-fallConcussion are serious business compared to most broken bones.
Collarbones generally heal fine and most others. A broken hip
certainly more to worry about than most. Concussions are an unknown
in my book and in many medical doctors. The left over effects are not
always apparent at first and hard to really pin down. The brain in
complicated and we see this in football over the years and boxing.
In some way I don't blame a cyclist for walking away depending on the
situation. Certainly from competitive cycling but even just riding in
general as you can fall over bad just barely moving.
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is
significantly higher than other activities'. Society would do better
by stopping the scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing
motorists or pedestrians to wear helmets.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:00:11 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>hesitation. So Saturday I will be able to go out on a ride with my friends again for the fist time in 2 months. I will be wearing a helmet whether you think that they are necessary or not because I am living proof that at least they do some good. And I
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 08:39:45 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 3/24/2025 8:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly >>>>> higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the >>>>> scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of control when they fall.
I just succeeded with my first ride in two months. I rode around a parking lot and there was a straight tar line that I was able to follow. I even managed to dodge a dog. So I got out on the street and rode back home around four turns without
I also bought a pair of American made leather riding gloves with knit backs. I forgot how good those felt. I can actually break a fall with my hands again. The Chinese look alikes tore to pieces on a gentle fall.
US made cycling gloves? Really? What brand?
Aero/Tech. They came with a Made In America tag and they fit American hands! The gloves are real leather and the palms are double thick.
The web site proclaims "Made in USA" for the apparel (clothing): <https://www.aerotechdesigns.com/cycling-apparel-made-in-usa>
"When you buy a Made-In-The-USA cycling short or jersey from Aero Tech Designs, you can be sure it was crafted with care by skilled
seamstresses and seamsters right here in Pittsburgh."
Notice that it doesn't mention gloves.
The "Made in USA" logo and associated commentary are missing from the
pages for gloves:
<https://aerotechdesigns.com/padded-bike-gloves.html>
The web site mentions that not all of their products are made in the
USA:
<https://www.aerotechdesigns.com/cycling-apparel-made-in-usa>
"We do import a product from time to time, so if you are looking for a
made in usa product that is the best way to comfirm."
Does the unspecified model Aero Tech gloves that you bought have a
"Made in USA" logo?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:02:06 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>>>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking >>>>
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to show the use
of seat belts.
You could prove that helmets don't always prevent head injuries, but
not that they don't sometimes do it. Proving a negative is difficult
task.
On Tue Mar 25 12:07:29 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 01:36:02 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion >> >> with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as >> >> well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should >> >> always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
+1
I would never use a helmet. Not in this climate. It's too hot,
my hair would become pudding.
Frank, you deo not run, do you? The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically for running.
God ? LOL.
Our "system" was "designed" to walk on all fours. Divide the
weight among 4 limbs.
Then tens of thousands of years ago a right-wing monkey
decided to show the others it was bigger and better and stood up. Put
it on social media and it became a "thing". Everyone wanted to be
"bigger and better".
Half the others voted to make it mandatory. And it still is...
Which is why knees and feet wear out so much and people
complain of lumbago.
Am I supposed to care whether you believe in God or not?. Human anatomy was >NEVER designed to walk on all fours. Well perhaps yours was.
Maduro being President really disturbvs you doesn't it?
Imagine someone saying that people are only equal to the extent of their capabilities and they don't have any responsibility for those save cannot provide for themselves.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:00:11 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>hesitation. So Saturday I will be able to go out on a ride with my friends again for the fist time in 2 months. I will be wearing a helmet whether you think that they are necessary or not because I am living proof that at least they do some good. And I
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 08:39:45 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 3/24/2025 8:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly >>>>> higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the >>>>> scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of control when they fall.
I just succeeded with my first ride in two months. I rode around a parking lot and there was a straight tar line that I was able to follow. I even managed to dodge a dog. So I got out on the street and rode back home around four turns without
I also bought a pair of American made leather riding gloves with knit backs. I forgot how good those felt. I can actually break a fall with my hands again. The Chinese look alikes tore to pieces on a gentle fall.
US made cycling gloves? Really? What brand?
Aero/Tech. They came with a Made In America tag and they fit American hands! The gloves are real leather and the palms are double thick.
The web site proclaims "Made in USA" for the apparel (clothing): <https://www.aerotechdesigns.com/cycling-apparel-made-in-usa>
"When you buy a Made-In-The-USA cycling short or jersey from Aero Tech Designs, you can be sure it was crafted with care by skilled
seamstresses and seamsters right here in Pittsburgh."
Notice that it doesn't mention gloves.
The "Made in USA" logo and associated commentary are missing from the
pages for gloves:
<https://aerotechdesigns.com/padded-bike-gloves.html>
The web site mentions that not all of their products are made in the
USA:
<https://www.aerotechdesigns.com/cycling-apparel-made-in-usa>
"We do import a product from time to time, so if you are looking for a
made in usa product that is the best way to comfirm."
Does the unspecified model Aero Tech gloves that you bought have a
"Made in USA" logo?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
It's over a 9 year period:--
"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009-2018" ><https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm> ><https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7019a1-H.pdf>
"This analysis included data on bicycling-related TBIs that occurred
among adults aged (greater than or equal) 18 years and children and >adolescents (children) aged (less than or equal) 17 years during
2009-2018."
See Table 1 in the PDF for better (and less confusing) numbers.
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System ><https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data>
On 3/25/2025 12:57 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:00:11 GMT, cyclintom
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 08:39:45 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 3/24/2025 8:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be
commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of
concussion is significantly
higher than other activities'. Society would do better
by stopping the
scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing
motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great
deal faster than you. There's nothing wrong with riding
any speed you like. But faster riders have more of a
chance of not just falling but being out of control
when they fall.
I just succeeded with my first ride in two months. I
rode around a parking lot and there was a straight tar
line that I was able to follow. I even managed to dodge
a dog. So I got out on the street and rode back home
around four turns without hesitation. So Saturday I
will be able to go out on a ride with my friends again
for the fist time in 2 months. I will be wearing a
helmet whether you think that they are necessary or not
because I am living proof that at least they do some
good. And I fell down only about 2 feet at about 5 mph.
I also bought a pair of American made leather riding
gloves with knit backs. I forgot how good those felt. I
can actually break a fall with my hands again. The
Chinese look alikes tore to pieces on a gentle fall.
US made cycling gloves? Really? What brand?
Aero/Tech. They came with a Made In America tag and they
fit American hands! The gloves are real leather and the
palms are double thick.
The web site proclaims "Made in USA" for the apparel
(clothing):
<https://www.aerotechdesigns.com/cycling-apparel-made-in-usa>
"When you buy a Made-In-The-USA cycling short or jersey
from Aero Tech
Designs, you can be sure it was crafted with care by skilled
seamstresses and seamsters right here in Pittsburgh."
Notice that it doesn't mention gloves.
The "Made in USA" logo and associated commentary are
missing from the
pages for gloves:
<https://aerotechdesigns.com/padded-bike-gloves.html>
The web site mentions that not all of their products are
made in the
USA:
<https://www.aerotechdesigns.com/cycling-apparel-made-in-usa>
"We do import a product from time to time, so if you are
looking for a
made in usa product that is the best way to comfirm."
Does the unspecified model Aero Tech gloves that you
bought have a
"Made in USA" logo?
I was more intrigued by his claim "they fit American hands!"
I know Americans in generally are fatter than most of the
world, but does this apply to our hands as well?
On 3/24/2025 9:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly >>> higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the
scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of control when they fall.
with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the
group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people
with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
On 3/24/2025 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>> helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>>> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >>> common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >>> serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false. >>>
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm
" Because bicycling continues to grow in popularity,* primarily among
U.S. adults, examining the strategies that mitigate the risk for TBI
is important. CDC analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System-All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP) to determine the
incidence of EDs for bicycle-related TBIs during 2009–2018. An
estimated 596,972 ED visits for bicycle-related TBIs occurred in the
United States during the study period."
Look up the number for other activities, John. Context is important.
America is a big, big place. All numbers are big. And all big numbers
are scary for certain people, especially when taken out of context.
I was more intrigued by his claim "they fit American hands!"
I know Americans in generally are fatter than most of the world, but
does this apply to our hands as well?
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK bike
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree >>>>> that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no >>>>> balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>>> helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers >>>> who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>>>> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >>>> common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >>>> serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>> or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet ?debates? as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have such intrenched >>> positions.
Roger Merriman
I can't understand why anyone argues about wearing helmets other than
about making it mandatory. Whether on not a person wears a helmet has
no effect on anyone else. As for laws about adults wearing them, they
are gradually falling by the wayside.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Get it required by organisations and organised events which is admittedly a >low percentage of cyclists ie folks who are club members and/or Sportives
etc which often requires helmets commonly due to insurance.
Roger Merriman
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK bike
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>> helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>>> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >>> common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >>> serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false. >>>
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet debates as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have such intrenched >> positions.
Roger Merriman
I can't understand why anyone argues about wearing helmets other than
about making it mandatory. Whether on not a person wears a helmet has
no effect on anyone else. As for laws about adults wearing them, they
are gradually falling by the wayside.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 3/25/2025 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2025 9:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 13:12:49 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my
I agree that the afteraffects of concussions might be commonly
underestimated.
I disagree that ordinary bicycling's risk of concussion is significantly >>>> higher than other activities'. Society would do better by stopping the >>>> scare tactics regarding bicycling, and by convincing motorists or
pedestrians to wear helmets.
Frank, most of the people posting here ride a great deal faster than
you. There's nothing wrong with riding any speed you like. But faster
riders have more of a chance of not just falling but being out of
control when they fall.
typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up
with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at
similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the
group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more.
Yeah, I don't buy that either.
It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people
with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my
typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up
with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at
similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the
group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people
with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my claim
of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow. Yet I drop most other
riders and just 4 or 5 years ago I would drop them on hard climbs despite averaging 13 mph. When you have no idea what real average speed is why
would you even begin to think that on a 30 lb 6 speed freewheel bike you could even keep me on a 19 lb 12 speed Campy equiped bike even in sight?
You make statement after statement that shows an utter lack of
understanding of riding speeds and think yourself a good rider. I'm sure
that you are a good rider but you're not even close to the same speed
regime and I am recovering from a stroke.
Am 25.03.2025 um 15:29 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 3/24/2025 9:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:13:48 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm stating my opinion in a discussion group. You should be able to
tolerate that, especially since over the years I've backed up my opinion >>>> with mountains of data.
Please note that your statements above, about the nasty "leftover
affects" and "you can fall over bad just barely moving" apply exactly as >>>> well to running. Yet I'll bet you'd hate hearing that all runners should >>>> always wear a helmet when running.
The only real difference is you haven't yet expressed your hatred for
running helmets.
Frank, you deo not run, do you?
On occasion I do, usually with some reluctance.
The entire human skeletal structure is designed by God specifically
for running.
If God had meant for us to be running, he would not have given us
bicycles. ;-)
While you CAN fall completely out of control it is not the case with
any experienced runners or even speed walkers.
It's also not the case for me on a bicycle. Only three moving on-road
falls in over 50 years of riding. Zero head injuries. Most avid cyclists
never ever hit their head, and certainly never hard enough to induce
brain injury.
Attention: the reflexes keeping our heads away from the ground are
strongly reduced by old age and by inebriation. I sincerely plan to
start wearing a bicycle helmet from age 80 onwards and not to ride an
upright bicycle when drunk (on the recumbent, the distance to ground is >halved) ;-)
floriduh dumbass <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 17:33:47 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK bike
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree >>>>>>> that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no >>>>>>> balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>>>>> helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following >>>>>> most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use >>>>>> brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my >>>>>> favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic >>>>>> sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers >>>>>> who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans >>>>>>> overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >>>>>> common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's >>>>>> available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when >>>>>> someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that >>>>>> helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >>>>>> serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>>> or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet ?debates? as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have such intrenched >>>>> positions.
Roger Merriman
I can't understand why anyone argues about wearing helmets other than
about making it mandatory. Whether on not a person wears a helmet has
no effect on anyone else. As for laws about adults wearing them, they
are gradually falling by the wayside.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Get it required by organisations and organised events which is admittedly a >>> low percentage of cyclists ie folks who are club members and/or Sportives >>> etc which often requires helmets commonly due to insurance.
Roger Merriman
I wouldn't ride anyplace where bicycle helmets were required. I tried
one on my head once, I could feel my IQ going down.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
On 25 Mar 2025 17:33:47 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK bike
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree >>>>>> that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no >>>>>> balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>>>> helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following >>>>> most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use >>>>> brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic >>>>> sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers >>>>> who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>>>>> be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's >>>>> common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that >>>>> helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a >>>>> serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>> or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet ?debates? as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have such intrenched >>>> positions.
Roger Merriman
I can't understand why anyone argues about wearing helmets other than
about making it mandatory. Whether on not a person wears a helmet has
no effect on anyone else. As for laws about adults wearing them, they
are gradually falling by the wayside.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Get it required by organisations and organised events which is admittedly a >> low percentage of cyclists ie folks who are club members and/or Sportives
etc which often requires helmets commonly due to insurance.
Roger Merriman
I wouldn't ride anyplace where bicycle helmets were required. I tried
one on my head once, I could feel my IQ going down.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
A significant amount of sewing time for a $40 retail product.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:13:27 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
I was more intrigued by his claim "they fit American hands!"
I know Americans in generally are fatter than most of the world, but
does this apply to our hands as well?
Variations in hand sizes follow shoe sizes. The local hardware store
has a wide variety of work and gardening gloves. Mostly, I use gloves
for firewood handling. Unfortunately, the only gloves that fit me
properly are Women's Small or Medium. Men's Small fingers are too
long. I became somewhat proficient at altering and stitching the
glove fingers, but at about 2 hrs per pair, I gave up and have
resigned myself to wearing pink, purple and flower design leather
gloves. I have a similar problem with pianos where an octave span is
a stretch.
"Whose hands are biggest? You may be surprised." <https://www.nablu.com/2022/03/whose-hands-are-biggest-you-may-be.html> Scroll down to the table and graph in the middle of the document.
Notice the wide range in hand sizes. The authors sources of data and
sample sizes are not very good, but does show that there are
differences in hand sizes.
Hand size is also an issue with smartphone screen sizes:
"How Large is Your Phone? A Cross-cultural Study of Smartphone Comfort Perception and Preference between Germans and Chinese" <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351978915003558>
On 3/25/2025 7:52 AM, John B. wrote:
As I've said many times before, I haven't been the U.S. for many years ...
Perhaps you should come visit to refresh your knowledge.
But do people in other parts of the world avoid playing baseball or in
an English "colony", Cricket, because one must wear a helmet, or U.S.
football. or riding to the hounds or all the various activities that
require a helmet".
John, I live two blocks from a Village football field - the old high
school field - and an adjacent flat grassy field. Both are used by young
guys and kids for a variety of "pick up" sports, including touch football.
Guys playing touch football do not wear helmets. There is no mandate,
and apparently the guys judge that the risk of serious head injury is
low. I played touch football on an intramural team in college, and none
of us wore helmets.
Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest fear mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is huge, far
worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data showing that's false.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:22:55 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
A significant amount of sewing time for a $40 retail product.
It's not too difficult to make cycling gloves. However, it does
require some practice and experience. The problem is that no part of
the glove will lie flat on the sewing machine bed plate. That means
that fixtures, jigs, attachments and preforms don't work well. I can
easily find automated glove making machinery, but they're all for blow
molded rubber or for knitted gloves. The leather palm and knitted
back of the typical bicycle glove do not lend themselves to
automation. The leather palm can be preformed, but that creates a
problem for store display and packaging, which are best done flat. <https://www.google.com/search?q=automated%20glove%20making&udm=2>
For me, the problem was making the stitched leather seams inside the
glove reasonably comfortable. Some of the gloves I've seen don't even
bother with this and simply leave a lumpy seam inside the glove. I
tried Latex glue instead of stiching, but found that the glue was
messy, aged badly and would not remain very flexible.
When all else is likely to fail, machine sewing the gloves, without automation, is probably best.
On Tue Mar 25 06:55:39 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 3/24/2025 10:04 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:54:27 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
Keith Bontrager had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the >>>> Wavecel Helmet and has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the helmets.
Wavecel was founded by Michael Bottlang, PhD and Dr. Steve Madey.
https://wavecel.com/about-us/
They published a white paper in 2018 describing their research and
suggestions for new helmet design.
https://wavecel.com/wp-content/uploads/accidentanalysispublication.pdf >>>>
- The abstract states "rotational acceleration and the associated brain >>>> injury risk can be significantly reduced by the cellular WAVECEL concept >>>> or a MIPS slip liner."
- The Disclosure states "Some of the authors (MB, SMM) are co-inventors >>>> of CELL technology described in this manuscript, have filed patents, and >>>> have a financial interest in the company that owns this technology.
These authors (MB, SMM) are founders and co-directors of the Legacy
Biomechanics Laboratory. Several of the authors (EB, AR, ST, SMM,
MB) are affiliated with the Legacy Health System, which was a partial
funder of this research."
No Bontrager.
Bontragers name is associated with it for the simple reason that Trek
bought the technology and sells bike accessories under the Bontrager
trademark. The differences between Trek and Bontrager Wavecel models are >>>> mostly aesthetic. Some models run cooler and or lighter than others, but >>>> this isn't exclusive to trek or bontrager. In fact, there are Circuit
and Stavros models for both Trek and Bontrager which are identical
except for color choices.
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/equipment/bike-accessories/bike-helmets/wavecel-helmets/c/E399/
yeah yeah....we know, Kieth told you personally that he designed the
helmet after he talked to you about your injury, right?
Thanks for that piece of information. I might ask why you didn't inform us before when I told everyone about the Wavecel?
Why would I, dumbass? I have no opinion of the Wavecel, it's your claim
that they were invented by Kieth Bontrager I'm addressing.
Was it because you were too busy telling everyone that it was a useless piece of shit?
I never made any claim even remotely suggesting that.
I haven't seen Keith since before I was injured so he wasn't marketing them under his name at that time.
He still isn't. He never marketed Wavecel helmets. Trek owns the
Bontrager name for marketing purposes. Trek markets them under the Trek
name and the Bontrager name.
Now that you found information proving me wrong suddenly they are the cat's pajamas? Or are you still of the opinion that they are a piece of shit because I am recommending them?
False First Premise: That I ever claimed they were bad. Lab tests show
them to be better, that's all I really know about them, besides the fact
that Kieth Bontrager has nothing to do with them.
But since Trek stopped marketing them they are not being marketed. Or maybe you have some more informtion on the Spector that I cannot find?
Of course you can't find it, you're an idiot.
If you weren't, you'd know all you would need to do is type "trek
wavecel 2025" into your web browser - but no, that's above and beyond
your abilities.
From my link above:
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/equipment/bike-accessories/bike-helmets/wavecel-helmets/c/E399/
Here's one of the seven Trek Wavecel offerings on that page:
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/equipment/bike-accessories/bike-helmets/mountain-bike-helmets/mens-mountain-bike-helmets/trek-rally-wavecel-mountain-bike-helmet/p/45105/?colorCode=purple_black
The current webpage from Trek showing the helmets for sale isn't enough
for you to understand that Trek still markets wavecel helmets?
You appear to be getting early dementia since suddenly you have no opinion of a helmet that you hated when I talked about it in 2020. You couldn't say enough negative about it because I was recommending it. Now that there is photographic evidence thatit does work, you're crying that you neve said anything against them previously. Whine on.
On 3/25/2025 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:13:27 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
I was more intrigued by his claim "they fit American hands!"
I know Americans in generally are fatter than most of the
world, but
does this apply to our hands as well?
Variations in hand sizes follow shoe sizes. The local
hardware store
has a wide variety of work and gardening gloves. Mostly,
I use gloves
for firewood handling. Unfortunately, the only gloves
that fit me
properly are Women's Small or Medium. Men's Small fingers
are too
long. I became somewhat proficient at altering and
stitching the
glove fingers, but at about 2 hrs per pair, I gave up and
have
resigned myself to wearing pink, purple and flower design
leather
gloves. I have a similar problem with pianos where an
octave span is
a stretch.
"Whose hands are biggest? You may be surprised."
<https://www.nablu.com/2022/03/whose-hands-are-biggest-
you-may-be.html>
Scroll down to the table and graph in the middle of the
document.
Notice the wide range in hand sizes. The authors sources
of data and
sample sizes are not very good, but does show that there are
differences in hand sizes.
Hand size is also an issue with smartphone screen sizes:
"How Large is Your Phone? A Cross-cultural Study of
Smartphone Comfort
Perception and Preference between Germans and Chinese"
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2351978915003558>
Going on an assumption with dubious evidence, Andrews
demographics stereo typically are from eastern Europe. Id
also assume therefore that his customers hands are therefore
on the large size according to the Nablu page.
On Tue Mar 25 14:24:43 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
[]'s
It's over a 9 year period:
"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009-2018"
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm>
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7019a1-H.pdf>
"This analysis included data on bicycling-related TBIs that occurred
among adults aged (greater than or equal) 18 years and children and
adolescents (children) aged (less than or equal) 17 years during
2009-2018."
See Table 1 in the PDF for better (and less confusing) numbers.
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
<https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data>
That was obvious except it gave Liebermann a chance to exercise his expertise at using Googol. Of course, I get "no such page".
since he insists on loading his references up with viruses. BitDefender will not let those viruses through.
On 3/25/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:13:27 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
I was more intrigued by his claim "they fit American hands!"
I know Americans in generally are fatter than most of the world, but
does this apply to our hands as well?
Variations in hand sizes follow shoe sizes. The local hardware store
has a wide variety of work and gardening gloves. Mostly, I use gloves
for firewood handling. Unfortunately, the only gloves that fit me
properly are Women's Small or Medium. Men's Small fingers are too
long. I became somewhat proficient at altering and stitching the
glove fingers, but at about 2 hrs per pair, I gave up and have
resigned myself to wearing pink, purple and flower design leather
gloves. I have a similar problem with pianos where an octave span is
a stretch.
"Whose hands are biggest? You may be surprised."
<https://www.nablu.com/2022/03/whose-hands-are-biggest- you-may-be.html> >>> Scroll down to the table and graph in the middle of the document.
Notice the wide range in hand sizes. The authors sources of data and
sample sizes are not very good, but does show that there are
differences in hand sizes.
Hand size is also an issue with smartphone screen sizes:
"How Large is Your Phone? A Cross-cultural Study of Smartphone Comfort
Perception and Preference between Germans and Chinese"
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2351978915003558>
Going on an assumption with dubious evidence, Andrews demographics
stereo typically are from eastern Europe. Id also assume therefore
that his customers hands are therefore on the large size according to
the Nablu page.
At our prior location customers skewed younger; tall with big hands and feet. Here, our rural customers are more likely to actually work with
their hands rather than shuffling a mouse around for a half day. That's
a bigger difference than national trends IMHO.
On Tue Mar 25 12:12:26 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:02:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>> helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>>> be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
[]'s
Btain injuries are among the most serious consequences of bicycle accidents and include concussions, moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries and post-concussive syndrome.
But Frank tells us that these injuries do not exist in his universe.
Shadow, those are HOSPITAL EVALUATED injuries and not your idea of "I think I bumped my head". These are SHOWN on an MRI as was mine. I suggest if you don't understand what is being said that you simply ask a question. We are happy to answer yourquestions.
When they say "traumatic brain injuries, that meand they have been diagnosed either with x-rays which show major damage or Magnetic Resonance Imaging which shows everything.
On 3/25/2025 3:00 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 12:12:26 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:02:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a
fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good
since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in
the minority about
helmets and while he may have data to support it
sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and
what I think might
be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank
goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it
is. Small news
group so?
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain
injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
[]'s
Btain injuries are among the most serious consequences
of bicycle accidents and include concussions, moderate
to severe traumatic brain injuries and post-concussive
syndrome.
But Frank tells us that these injuries do not exist in
his universe.
Shadow, those are HOSPITAL EVALUATED injuries and not your
idea of "I think I bumped my head". These are SHOWN on an
MRI as was mine. I suggest if you don't understand what is
being said that you simply ask a question. We are happy to
answer your questions.
When they say "traumatic brain injuries, that meand they
have been diagnosed either with x-rays which show major
damage or Magnetic Resonance Imaging which shows everything.
Maybe, maybe not. The Medical Billing racket (formerly the
medical services racket) doesn't report anything to anyone
with an ulterior motive or angle, or kickback or some such.
On 3/25/2025 4:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:13:27 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
I was more intrigued by his claim "they fit American
hands!"
I know Americans in generally are fatter than most of
the world, but
does this apply to our hands as well?
Variations in hand sizes follow shoe sizes. The local
hardware store
has a wide variety of work and gardening gloves.
Mostly, I use gloves
for firewood handling. Unfortunately, the only gloves
that fit me
properly are Women's Small or Medium. Men's Small
fingers are too
long. I became somewhat proficient at altering and
stitching the
glove fingers, but at about 2 hrs per pair, I gave up
and have
resigned myself to wearing pink, purple and flower
design leather
gloves. I have a similar problem with pianos where an
octave span is
a stretch.
"Whose hands are biggest? You may be surprised."
<https://www.nablu.com/2022/03/whose-hands-are-biggest-
you-may-be.html>
Scroll down to the table and graph in the middle of the
document.
Notice the wide range in hand sizes. The authors
sources of data and
sample sizes are not very good, but does show that there
are
differences in hand sizes.
Hand size is also an issue with smartphone screen sizes:
"How Large is Your Phone? A Cross-cultural Study of
Smartphone Comfort
Perception and Preference between Germans and Chinese"
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2351978915003558>
Going on an assumption with dubious evidence, Andrews
demographics stereo typically are from eastern Europe. Id
also assume therefore that his customers hands are
therefore on the large size according to the Nablu page.
At our prior location customers skewed younger; tall with
big hands and feet. Here, our rural customers are more
likely to actually work with their hands rather than
shuffling a mouse around for a half day. That's a bigger
difference than national trends IMHO.
Wider deviations from the median should be expected from a
smaller data set.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:24:43 -0300, Shadow <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
About 30 years ago, I was riding my bicycle when I collided with a
dentist and his Pontiac going in the opposite direction. He ran the
stop sign while I was on the wrong side of the road. I slid over the
Pontiac hood, bounced off the windshield, again slid over the hood in
the opposite direction, and landed on my back in the roadway. I don't
recall if I was wearing a helmet. Probably not. An ambulance
appeared from somewhere. I was strapped to a backboard and delivered
to the ER at a local hospital. While still strapped to the backboard,
the CHP (California Highway Patrol) arrived and handed me an expensive >traffic ticket. They ran a CT scan, didn't find anything interesting
and released me. By this time, the muscles in my back went on strike
and painfully refused to cooperate. There was no mention or
indications of a brain injury.
Fast forward about 4 years and I'm doing computer service for the
hospital in the ER. (The ER was moved 3 times in 4 or 5 years). I
looked at my records and found that they showed that I had experienced
a TBI (traumatic brain injury). My best guess(tm) is that someone had >"reviewed" my records and made a "correction".
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
"That which is obvious, beyond any need of checking, is usually
wrong."
"Assumption. The mother of all mistakes".--
"When someone claims they're joking, take a closer look to see what
they're hiding".
On 3/25/2025 3:00 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 12:12:26 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:02:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree >>>>> that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no >>>>> balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>>> helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans >>>>> overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>>>> be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated
in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
[]'s
Btain injuries are among the most serious consequences of bicycle
accidents and include concussions, moderate to severe traumatic brain
injuries and post-concussive syndrome.
But Frank tells us that these injuries do not exist in his universe.
Shadow, those are HOSPITAL EVALUATED injuries and not your idea of "I
think I bumped my head". These are SHOWN on an MRI as was mine. I
suggest if you don't understand what is being said that you simply ask a
question. We are happy to answer your questions.
When they say "traumatic brain injuries, that meand they have been
diagnosed either with x-rays which show major damage or Magnetic
Resonance Imaging which shows everything.
Maybe, maybe not. The Medical Billing racket (formerly the
medical services racket) doesn't report anything to anyone
with an ulterior motive or angle, or kickback or some such.
On Tue Mar 25 12:12:26 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:02:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >> >> helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >> >> be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
[]'s
Btain injuries are among the most serious consequences of bicycle accidents and include concussions, moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries and post-concussive syndrome.
But Frank tells us that these injuries do not exist in his universe.
Shadow, those are HOSPITAL EVALUATED injuries and not your idea of "I think I bumped my head". These are SHOWN on an MRI as was mine. I suggest if you don't understand what is being said that you simply ask a question. We are happy to answer yourquestions.
When they say "traumatic brain injuries, that meand they have been diagnosed either with x-rays which show major damage or Magnetic Resonance Imaging which shows everything.
On Tue Mar 25 12:25:34 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
You could prove that helmets don't always prevent head injuries, but
not that they don't sometimes do it. Proving a negative is difficult
task.
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
On Tue Mar 25 14:24:43 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
[]'s
It's over a 9 year period:
"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009-2018"
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm>
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7019a1-H.pdf>
"This analysis included data on bicycling-related TBIs that occurred
among adults aged (greater than or equal) 18 years and children and
adolescents (children) aged (less than or equal) 17 years during
2009-2018."
See Table 1 in the PDF for better (and less confusing) numbers.
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
<https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data>
That was obvious except it gave Liebermann a chance to exercise his expertise at using Googol. Of course, I get "no such page". since he insists on loading his references up with viruses. BitDefender will not let those viruses through.
floriduh dumbass <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 17:33:47 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK bike
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree >>>>>>>> that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no >>>>>>>> balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport >>>>>>> cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following >>>>>>> most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use >>>>>>> brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my >>>>>>> favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic >>>>>>> sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers >>>>>>> who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans >>>>>>>> overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's
common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's >>>>>>> available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when >>>>>>> someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that >>>>>>> helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a
serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>>>> or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times. >>>>>>>
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet ?debates? as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have such intrenched
positions.
Roger Merriman
I can't understand why anyone argues about wearing helmets other than >>>>> about making it mandatory. Whether on not a person wears a helmet has >>>>> no effect on anyone else. As for laws about adults wearing them, they >>>>> are gradually falling by the wayside.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Get it required by organisations and organised events which is admittedly a
low percentage of cyclists ie folks who are club members and/or Sportives >>>> etc which often requires helmets commonly due to insurance.
Roger Merriman
I wouldn't ride anyplace where bicycle helmets were required. I tried
one on my head once, I could feel my IQ going down.
That wasn't from the helmet
On 3/25/2025 1:32 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:22:55 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
A significant amount of sewing time for a $40 retail product.
It's not too difficult to make cycling gloves. However, it does
require some practice and experience. The problem is that no part of
the glove will lie flat on the sewing machine bed plate. That means
that fixtures, jigs, attachments and preforms don't work well. I can
easily find automated glove making machinery, but they're all for blow
molded rubber or for knitted gloves. The leather palm and knitted
back of the typical bicycle glove do not lend themselves to
automation. The leather palm can be preformed, but that creates a
problem for store display and packaging, which are best done flat.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=automated%20glove%20making&udm=2>
For me, the problem was making the stitched leather seams inside the
glove reasonably comfortable. Some of the gloves I've seen don't even
bother with this and simply leave a lumpy seam inside the glove. I
tried Latex glue instead of stiching, but found that the glue was
messy, aged badly and would not remain very flexible.
When all else is likely to fail, machine sewing the gloves, without
automation, is probably best.
Right, it certainly is.
I have sourced my own private label gloves in three
countries so I'm familiar with the relationship between
pattern and cost. Most cycling gloves are indeed flat which
does lower cost somewhat. Also, less detail = fewer stitches
= lower labor cost.
Compare $15~$20 Pakistani cotton-back goatskin cycling
gloves with $140 Italian driving gloves for example:
https://www.fratelli-orsini.com/collections/mens-collection/products/arturo-cognac-hand-sewn-italian-crochet-driving-gloves-from-lambskin-leather
Yes lamb costs more than goat, but still. Even at the $120
sale price.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:00:19 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>questions.
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 12:12:26 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:02:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree >>>>> that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no >>>>> balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about >>>>> helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans >>>>> overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might >>>>> be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
[]'s
Btain injuries are among the most serious consequences of bicycle accidents and include concussions, moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries and post-concussive syndrome.
But Frank tells us that these injuries do not exist in his universe.
Shadow, those are HOSPITAL EVALUATED injuries and not your idea of "I think I bumped my head". These are SHOWN on an MRI as was mine. I suggest if you don't understand what is being said that you simply ask a question. We are happy to answer your
When they say "traumatic brain injuries, that meand they have been diagnosed either with x-rays which show major damage or Magnetic Resonance Imaging which shows everything.
NO, TBI means anything from a slight headache to a small
hematoma to the skull. Or even if the patient says "I think I bumped
my head".
Some hospitals ask "did you bump your head?" and if the
patient can't remember, mark "yes" for insurance purposes.
Brain damage rarely shows on a simple Xray, unless there is a
fracture. An MRI might or might not show anything. Ditto a CT scan.
Depends if there is any bleeding or swelling.
The diagnosis is usually clinical. Loss of function, temporary blindness or deafness, loss of memory(main sign of concussion),
confusion etc. And those can all have other causes.
Never trust what the hospitals say. Not in a country where
they are run as a business.
[]'s
On Tue Mar 25 14:13:03 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:00:11 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 08:39:45 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 3/24/2025 8:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I also bought a pair of American made leather riding gloves with knit backs. I forgot how good those felt. I can actually break a fall with my hands again. The Chinese look alikes tore to pieces on a gentle fall.
US made cycling gloves? Really? What brand?
Aero/Tech. They came with a Made In America tag and they fit American hands! The gloves are real leather and the palms are double thick.
"We make every effort to produce as many items as possible in
our Pittsburgh office, but unfortunately gloves are one exception. We
just do not have the production capacity or specialized machines
necessary and so our gloves are imported. These gloves are
manufactured in Pakistan by a trusted partner that we've worked with
for well over a decade."
Maybe they had trouble hiring "illegals" to do the hard work,
so they outsourced it to a place "illegals" come from.
Now what does that remind me of?
MAGA hats come with a "Made In America" tag too.
"We make every effort to produce as many items as possible in
our Dallas, Texas office, but unfortunately MAGA hats are one
exception. We just do not have the production capacity or specialized
machines necessary and so our hats are imported. These hats are
manufactured in China by a trusted partner that we've worked with for
well over a decade."
LOL
Well, they were sold as Made in America. But indeed, under the XL label it does say, "made in Pakistan".
On Mon Mar 24 21:35:40 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:introduced me to the Wavecell in 2020. How does that fit your invention of time tables?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:04:34 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
I haven't seen Keith since before I was injured so he wasn't marketing them under his name at that time.
You had a concussion in 2010.
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6912346811772932096/> >> "I got a severe concussion in 2010 that led to a type of seizures that
I didn't remember afterwards. This wasn't discovered and treated
properly until 2012 after 4 car wrecks luckily without any injuries"
Wavecel was founded in 2016. There is no way anyone associated with
Wavecel could or would talk to you about their product in 2010 because
it didn't exist in 2010. If the inventor(s) did a public disclosure
more than 12 months prior to when the patent was issued (2016), they
would risk having the invention considered as prior art.
Liebermann, we already know that you're missing a few rocks out of a full load. Is there some reason you cannot understand that I am recommending the Wavecel BECAUSE the old fashion foam helmet I was wearing didn't prevent traumatic brain injuries? Trek
On Tue Mar 25 14:24:43 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
[]'s
It's over a 9 year period:
"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009-2018"
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm>
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7019a1-H.pdf>
"This analysis included data on bicycling-related TBIs that occurred
among adults aged (greater than or equal) 18 years and children and
adolescents (children) aged (less than or equal) 17 years during
2009-2018."
See Table 1 in the PDF for better (and less confusing) numbers.
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
<https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data>
That was obvious except it gave Liebermann a chance to exercise his expertise at using Googol.
Of course, I get "no such page". since he insists on loading his references up with viruses. BitDefender will not let those viruses through.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:49:32 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 11:11 schrieb John B.:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a
fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good
since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in
the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of
avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with
not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals,
I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that
advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't
use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the
helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes
we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and
what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad
decisions, but it's
common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good
data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet
debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or
implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies
that bicycling is a
serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those
notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious
traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's
contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts.
Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than
pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over
the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked
countless times.
bike
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely
introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet “debates” as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have
such intrenched
positions.
Roger Merriman
I've told this story before but once again.
When I was working around oil well drilling rigs the word
came down
from the Drilling Company - "When you come back from
break be sure
you are wearing a "Hard Hat"(i.e. helmet) or don't bother
to come
back". And you know? Everybody came back with a hard hat
and there was
never a mention, good, bad or indifferent, whether people
wanted to
were a helmet, or not, or any of the other arguments I
hear in
bicycle circles.
How many people get paid to go bicycling? Most people cycle
voluntarily, or stop cycling voluntarily.
What is the cost to society if people "don't bother to come
back" (as hapened in Australia)?
Why did the "don't bother to come back unless you wear a
seat belt" not work in the USA?
In a perfect world, I would probably wear a seat belt when
driving. But since the State made it mandatory, which
naturally engenders defiance, I just restrict myself to
exempt autos and drive without.
(:-) do we assume that you also ignore state laws against, oh say,
theft and taxes?
On 3/25/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-
More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-
Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-
you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
I'm willing to discuss any of those. A couple quick points: Several
discuss "head injury" not "brain injury." Bike helmet promoters bank
heavily on conflating the two in order to scare the public. The most >notorious example I'm aware of was the notorious Thompson & Rivara 1989
paper that generated the false claim of "85% benefit." T&R actually
counted abrasions of the ears as "head injuries" when computing benefit.
Yes, technically, it's part of the head - but it's not what people have
been led to think about.
Second quick point: That T&R study has been thoroughly discredited. One
issue which should make it obviously invalid to anyone with scientific >knowledge is that its levels of protection have _never_ been
corroborated by subsequent studies.
There's much more I could say, but those are quick and easy points.
As to documentation of my points above: Yes, you can find enthusiastic >propaganda making it sound like bicycling is a major source of brain
injury. But if it doesn't give numbers for other sources, the claim has
not been demonstrated. You'd have to compare with other activities - for >example, descending stairs; or walking in a city; or riding in a car. Or >heck, just look up the total numbers for brain injuries in America and >compare with bicycling.
The easiest data to find, in my experience, is brain injury fatality
data. What I've found is over 55,000 TBI fatalities per year in the U.S.
In that time period there were about 500 bicycle TBI fatalities, so >significantly less than 1% of the total.
Will we ever get helmets on the other 99%?
And have helmets reduced those deaths? Have they reduced bicycling >concussions, the most common (albeit mild) brain injury? I've found no >evidence. In the years that helmets suddenly went from rare to common,
there was no corresponding drop in bike fatalities. Pedestrian
fatalities actually dropped more during that time. And recorded bike >concussions have actually risen.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:12:33 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 7:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:49:32 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 11:11 schrieb John B.:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a
fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good
since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in
the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of
avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with
not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals,
I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that
advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't
use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the
helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes
we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and
what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad
decisions, but it's
common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good
data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet
debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or
implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies
that bicycling is a
serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those
notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious
traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's
contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts.
Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than
pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over
the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked
countless times.
bike
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely
introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet �debates� as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have
such intrenched
positions.
Roger Merriman
I've told this story before but once again.
When I was working around oil well drilling rigs the word
came down
from the Drilling Company -� "When you come back from
break be sure
you are wearing a "Hard Hat"(i.e. helmet) or don't bother
to come
back". And you know? Everybody came back with a hard hat
and there was
never a mention,� good, bad or indifferent, whether people
wanted to
were a helmet, or not, or any of the other� arguments I
hear in
bicycle circles.
How many people get paid to go bicycling? Most people cycle
voluntarily, or stop cycling voluntarily.
What is the cost to society if people "don't bother to come
back" (as hapened in Australia)?
Why did the "don't bother to come back unless you wear a
seat belt" not work in the USA?
In a perfect world, I would probably wear a seat belt when
driving. But since the State made it mandatory, which
naturally engenders defiance, I just restrict myself to
exempt autos and drive without.
(:-) do we assume that you also ignore state laws against, oh say,
theft and taxes?
I'm morally aligned with the statues on theft and resigned
to taxes.
But the seatbelt laws are well outside the proper realm of
the government.
As mentioned here recently, we either have a government of
limited enumerated powers or we do not.
Well... as I posted previously, your state receives a rather
astonishingly large amount of money from the Federal Government and if
you take their money you have to play to their tune :-)
On 3/25/2025 11:48 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 7:52 AM, John B. wrote:
As I've said many times before, I haven't been the U.S. for many
years ...
Perhaps you should come visit to refresh your knowledge.
But do people in other parts of the world avoid playing baseball or in >>>> an English "colony", Cricket, because one must wear a helmet, or U.S.
football. or riding to the hounds or all the various activities that
require� a helmet".
John, I live two blocks from a Village football field - the old high
school field - and an adjacent flat grassy field. Both are used by
young guys and kids for a variety of "pick up" sports, including touch
football.
Guys playing touch football do not wear helmets. There is no mandate,
and apparently the guys judge that the risk of serious head injury is
low. I played touch football on an intramural team in college, and
none of us wore helmets.
Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest fear
mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is huge, far
worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data showing that's
false.
There may not be any greater risk than any other activity, but that
doesn't mean that wearing a helmet won't protect you when your head hits
the asphalt.
Which is also true when running (as Mark does), when walking (I've had >friends seriously injured while walking on concrete sidewalks) and when
doing other things with non-zero risk of brain injury.
I'm a helmet wearer. I've always counseled people riding on public
roadways or riding for performance to wear helmets. For going on a
casual, low-risk ride on a smooth recreational rail trail, not much of
an issue and I've even gone out for such rides without one (as recently
as our trip to Aruba last year). But any time I'm going out on the road
or any ride at a 'fitness' level or higher, I always wear one.
Of course you do. And you wear special shorts, shoes, jerseys, gloves, >jackets and all the rest. I'm not trying to talk you out of any of that
kit.
But understand, until about 1980, "fitness" and competitive cyclists
wore all that stuff - but no helmets. It wasn't until the false
propaganda about unusual brain injury risk appeared that the foam hat
became part of the costume.
Did all those prior avid cyclists somehow not notice that their buddies
were getting brain injured? Nope, it was never a sizeable problem. Now
it's an "Omigosh!" serious risk.
40+ years of commuting, training, and racing have left me with a number
of incidents where I hit my head hard enough to damage the helmet.
Funny thing - I've had a couple of those that I remember. Except I
wasn't wearing a helmet. (I can relate the incidents yet again, if you
like.)
Helmets are _very_ easily damaged. It's part of the marketing strategy -
a minor bump can damage it. If one takes a bump, you're advised to >immediately replace it, even if no damage is visible. And some companies >still claim you should replace it every few years, just in case... or
because they want the sales.
What other device do you own that has those same caracteristics?
I can't say for sure it protected me from any brain injury, but I _do_
know it's protected me from bashing my head on rocks, trees, signposts,
asphalt, walls, cars... - All of which would have required trips to the
ER for stitches. For that reason alone it's worth it to me to wear one.
And of course, you're allowed to. Please keep in mind I'm talking about >normal riding, which for most people never involves any of those
inicidents. BTW, if I had such a list of events, I'd consider revising
my riding style.
On 25 Mar 2025 20:00:21 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>>>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking >>>>
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There are a few countries that have mandated helmets, such as Australia >>which to the best of the knowledge the rate of injuries and extent didn�t >>change ie helmets at a population level made no difference, which is one of >>the reasons it fails to get though legislation in uk when ever someone >>tries a private bill.
Roger Merriman
??? >https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/02/cycling-fatalities-almost-halved-since-introduction-of-mandatory
"The evidence is in: Australian mandatory helmet laws brought in to
reduce fatalities in cycling have worked, with a world-first study of
such laws at UNSW Sydney.... showing they led to an immediate 46% drop
in fatalities and have saved billions of dollars in medical costs
since 1990."
On 3/25/2025 12:27 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Half of all deaths under 40 are automobile accidents.
Despite seat belts and air bags, of course. Yet nobody nags at motorists
to wear helmets.
In fact, I'll bet that when driving to or from the start of a ride, all
the helmet wearing cyclists in this group leave their helmets somewhere
in the car instead of wearing them. Because they're inside the car,
where far more brain injuries occur, they refuse to take advantage of
the added protection they so avidly proclaim!
Go figure!
On 3/25/2025 1:33 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
I can't understand why anyone argues about wearing helmets other than
about making it mandatory. Whether on not a person wears a helmet has
no effect on anyone else. As for laws about adults wearing them, they
are gradually falling by the wayside.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Get it required by organisations and organised events which is admittedly a >> low percentage of cyclists ie folks who are club members and/or Sportives
etc which often requires helmets commonly due to insurance.
Even the insurance is usually a red herring. I ran our club's annual
century for about eight years. We carried insurance through the League
of American Bicyclists, and I was very familiar with their required
liability release. It said absolutely nothing about helmets.
When I ran the ride, we did not require helmets. Almost everyone wore
one anyway. (It's part of America's "avid cyclist" costume, and fashion
is weird and powerful.) We had very few crashes and never a liability >problem.
On 3/25/2025 11:48 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 7:52 AM, John B. wrote:
As I've said many times before, I haven't been the U.S. for many
years ...
Perhaps you should come visit to refresh your knowledge.
But do people in other parts of the world avoid playing baseball or in >>>> an English "colony", Cricket, because one must wear a helmet, or U.S.
football. or riding to the hounds or all the various activities that
require a helmet".
John, I live two blocks from a Village football field - the old high
school field - and an adjacent flat grassy field. Both are used by
young guys and kids for a variety of "pick up" sports, including
touch football.
Guys playing touch football do not wear helmets. There is no mandate,
and apparently the guys judge that the risk of serious head injury is
low. I played touch football on an intramural team in college, and
none of us wore helmets.
Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest fear
mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is huge, far
worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data showing that's
false.
There may not be any greater risk than any other activity, but that
doesn't mean that wearing a helmet won't protect you when your head
hits the asphalt.
Which is also true when running (as Mark does), when walking (I've had friends seriously injured while walking on concrete sidewalks) and when
doing other things with non-zero risk of brain injury.
I'm a helmet wearer. I've always counseled people riding on public
roadways or riding for performance to wear helmets. For going on a
casual, low-risk ride on a smooth recreational rail trail, not much of
an issue and I've even gone out for such rides without one (as
recently as our trip to Aruba last year). But any time I'm going out
on the road or any ride at a 'fitness' level or higher, I always wear
one.
Of course you do. And you wear special shorts, shoes, jerseys, gloves, jackets and all the rest. I'm not trying to talk you out of any of that
kit.
But understand, until about 1980, "fitness" and competitive cyclists
wore all that stuff - but no helmets. It wasn't until the false
propaganda about unusual brain injury risk appeared that the foam hat
became part of the costume.
Did all those prior avid cyclists somehow not notice that their buddies
were getting brain injured? Nope, it was never a sizeable problem. Now
it's an "Omigosh!" serious risk.
40+ years of commuting, training, and racing have left me with a
number of incidents where I hit my head hard enough to damage the helmet.
Funny thing - I've had a couple of those that I remember. Except I
wasn't wearing a helmet.
(I can relate the incidents yet again, if you
like.)
Helmets are _very_ easily damaged. It's part of the marketing strategy -
a minor bump can damage it. If one takes a bump, you're advised to immediately replace it, even if no damage is visible. And some companies still claim you should replace it every few years, just in case... or
because they want the sales.
What other device do you own that has those same caracteristics?
I can't say for sure it protected me from any brain injury, but I _do_
know it's protected me from bashing my head on rocks, trees,
signposts, asphalt, walls, cars... - All of which would have required
trips to the ER for stitches. For that reason alone it's worth it to
me to wear one.
And of course, you're allowed to. Please keep in mind I'm talking about normal riding, which for most people never involves any of those
inicidents. BTW, if I had such a list of events, I'd consider revising
my riding style.
Well, lets see.... Is "touch football" the same sport as "football"?
Not to my knowledge and yes we used to play it... when we had to keep clean... say for school.
So... are you so stupid as to confuse a game for kids with almost no
contact with a game played by 240 lb players that hit each other with
as much as 1600 lbs of force?
So... we can assume from, your post, that you can't tell the
difference between a kid's game and a game played by professionals and
you confuse head injury with brain damage and, finally, that you are a
liar.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 02:24:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:41:02 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 20:00:21 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message. >>>>>>
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>>>> either fatalities or concussions?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There are a few countries that have mandated helmets, such as Australia >>>>which to the best of the knowledge the rate of injuries and extent didn�t >>>>change ie helmets at a population level made no difference, which is one of >>>>the reasons it fails to get though legislation in uk when ever someone >>>>tries a private bill.
Roger Merriman
??? >>>https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/02/cycling-fatalities-almost-halved-since-introduction-of-mandatory
"The evidence is in: Australian mandatory helmet laws brought in to >>>reduce fatalities in cycling have worked, with a world-first study of >>>such laws at UNSW Sydney.... showing they led to an immediate 46% drop
in fatalities and have saved billions of dollars in medical costs
since 1990."
How much of that was because people stopped riding bicycles?
I have no idea but Australia has reported that in some areas that
mandated 100% helmets use the number of participants decreased.
I'm still wonder about the drilling crew that were told to wear hard
hats and never a comment about it.. They certainly weren't shy about >complaining about the Tool Pusher or the Mud Engineers or the food in
the Mess,but never a word about the Hard Hats. In contrast I read much >Bitching about helmets by bicyclists and less about hardware.
On 3/25/2025 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:49:32 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
In a perfect world, I would probably wear a seat belt when
driving. But since the State made it mandatory, which
naturally engenders defiance, I just restrict myself to
exempt autos and drive without.
(:-) do we assume that you also ignore state laws against,
oh say,
theft and taxes?
Note that Andrew did not say he disobeys seat belt laws. He
drives older cars, and the seat belt laws do not apply to them.
A friend of mine owns a 1930 Model A pickup truck and a
1960(?) Corvair. I've ridden in the former and driven the
latter. No seat belts in either.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:11:09 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:12:33 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 7:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:49:32 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 11:11 schrieb John B.:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a
fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good
since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in
the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of
avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with
not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals,
I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that
advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't
use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the
helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes
we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and
what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad
decisions, but it's
common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good
data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet
debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or
implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies
that bicycling is a
serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those
notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious
traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's
contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts.
Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than
pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over
the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked
countless times.
bike
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely
introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet “debates” as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have
such intrenched
positions.
Roger Merriman
I've told this story before but once again.
When I was working around oil well drilling rigs the word
came down
from the Drilling Company - "When you come back from
break be sure
you are wearing a "Hard Hat"(i.e. helmet) or don't bother
to come
back". And you know? Everybody came back with a hard hat
and there was
never a mention, good, bad or indifferent, whether people
wanted to
were a helmet, or not, or any of the other arguments I
hear in
bicycle circles.
How many people get paid to go bicycling? Most people cycle
voluntarily, or stop cycling voluntarily.
What is the cost to society if people "don't bother to come
back" (as hapened in Australia)?
Why did the "don't bother to come back unless you wear a
seat belt" not work in the USA?
In a perfect world, I would probably wear a seat belt when
driving. But since the State made it mandatory, which
naturally engenders defiance, I just restrict myself to
exempt autos and drive without.
(:-) do we assume that you also ignore state laws against, oh say,
theft and taxes?
I'm morally aligned with the statues on theft and resigned
to taxes.
But the seatbelt laws are well outside the proper realm of
the government.
As mentioned here recently, we either have a government of
limited enumerated powers or we do not.
Well... as I posted previously, your state receives a rather
astonishingly large amount of money from the Federal Government and if
you take their money you have to play to their tune :-)
The question is, "why do the Feds tax people and then use it to bribe
them?
Why not simply stop taxing them?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 06:19:13 -0400, zen cycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:Yes, I must admit that I never heard of "flag football" and had to
Well, lets see.... Is "touch football" the same sport as "football"?
Not to my knowledge and yes we used to play it... when we had to keep
clean... say for school.
Yes, it is, the only difference is that tackling is not allowed.
So... are you so stupid as to confuse a game for kids with almost no
contact with a game played by 240 lb players that hit each other with
as much as 1600 lbs of force?
Are you so stupid as to assume - like the floriduh dumbass - that
becasuse you've never heard of something it doesn't exist?
Do these look like kids, you willfully ignorant dumbass?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bODdMqc-7c0
look it up on the Web, but my mention of "a game played by 240 lb
players that hit each other with as much as 1600 lbs of force?"
should have given you a clue to what I was talking about.
But, as they say, "Any port in a storm" ands I suppose you have to a
be imaginative to dream up all your snide remarks.
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to >>>>>>>> TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling >>>>>>>> causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related- Accidents-CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you? srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message. >>>>>
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>>> either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
On 3/25/2025 4:58 PM, cyclintom wrote:
While the tests of Wavecell by specialists is pretty conclusive the
only hard evidence is statistical analysis which requires a pretty
long time with bicycles since there are so few really serious injuries.
There are so few really serious injuries. But the propaganda machine
will insist that you're very likely to die if you leave your driveway
without a styrofoam cap.
On 3/25/2025 5:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could
argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances
of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't
interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
There's data out there indicating that people wearing helmets do crash
more (and show up in ER more) than people without helmets.
because those without helmets didn't survive, as some have claimed.)
While not a direct mechanical cause if injuries, some studies - and
many, many posted discussion remarks - indicate that people wearing
helmets are indulging in "risk compensation" meaning "Hey, I'm wearing a helmet do I can take more risks." (I did that today, but I'll probably
wait until tomorrow to post about it.) We've had people post here that
they would never do the risky mountain biking they do without the
helmet. We've had people say "I would never ride that busy road without
a helmet."
Risk compensation is probably near-universal with lots of "safety"
devices. It's not inappropriate as long as the increase in risk is commesurate with the increase in protection.
Trouble is, the protection
from a bike helmet is far, far less than people are led to believe. Look
up the standardization test.
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain caused far more
brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet protrudes at least an inch
from the head, providing a longer lever arm for glancing blows,
potentially worsening rotational acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair and very loose scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to
reduce that hazard. The helmet makes those ineffective.)
That situation is not fantasy. It is exactly what gave rise to Wavecell
and other anti-rotation helmets.
But helmet promoters still insist that
ordinary helmets are magic.
On 3/25/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel,
and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years
shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-
More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-
Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-
surprise- you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
I'm willing to discuss any of those. A couple quick points: Several
discuss "head injury" not "brain injury." Bike helmet promoters bank
heavily on conflating the two in order to scare the public. The most notorious example I'm aware of was the notorious Thompson & Rivara 1989
paper that generated the false claim of "85% benefit." T&R actually
counted abrasions of the ears as "head injuries" when computing benefit.
Yes, technically, it's part of the head - but it's not what people have
been led to think about.
Second quick point: That T&R study has been thoroughly discredited. One
issue which should make it obviously invalid to anyone with scientific knowledge is that its levels of protection have _never_ been
corroborated by subsequent studies.
There's much more I could say, but those are quick and easy points.
As to documentation of my points above: Yes, you can find enthusiastic propaganda making it sound like bicycling is a major source of brain
injury.
But if it doesn't give numbers for other sources, the claim has
not been demonstrated. You'd have to compare with other activities - for example, descending stairs; or walking in a city; or riding in a car. Or heck, just look up the total numbers for brain injuries in America and compare with bicycling.
The easiest data to find, in my experience, is brain injury fatality
data. What I've found is over 55,000 TBI fatalities per year in the U.S.
In that time period there were about 500 bicycle TBI fatalities, so significantly less than 1% of the total.
Will we ever get helmets on the other 99%?
And have helmets reduced those deaths?
Have they reduced bicycling
concussions, the most common (albeit mild) brain injury?
I've found no
evidence.
In the years that helmets suddenly went from rare to common,
there was no corresponding drop in bike fatalities.
Pedestrian
fatalities actually dropped more during that time. And recorded bike concussions have actually risen.
On 3/26/2025 2:09 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:11:09 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:12:33 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 7:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:49:32 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 11:11 schrieb John B.:
On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a
fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good
since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in
the minority about
helmets...
Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of
avid sport
cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with
not following
most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals,
I don't use
brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that
advertise my
favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't
use aerodynamic
sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the
helmet wearers
who are a definite minority.
... and while he may have data to support it sometimes
we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and
what I think might
be good.
That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad
decisions, but it's
common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good
data, when it's
available.
I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis >>>>>>>>>>> helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.
If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet
debates. But when
someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or
implying that
helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies
that bicycling is a
serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those
notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious
traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's
contribution to TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts.
Bicycling causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than
pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over
the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities
or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked
countless times.
bike
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely
introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
Helmet �debates� as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have
such intrenched
positions.
Roger Merriman
I've told this story before but once again.
When I was working around oil well drilling rigs the word
came down
from the Drilling Company -� "When you come back from
break be sure
you are wearing a "Hard Hat"(i.e. helmet) or don't bother
to come
back". And you know? Everybody came back with a hard hat
and there was
never a mention,� good, bad or indifferent, whether people
wanted to
were a helmet, or not, or any of the other� arguments I
hear in
bicycle circles.
How many people get paid to go bicycling? Most people cycle
voluntarily, or stop cycling voluntarily.
What is the cost to society if people "don't bother to come
back" (as hapened in Australia)?
Why did the "don't bother to come back unless you wear a
seat belt" not work in the USA?
In a perfect world, I would probably wear a seat belt when
driving. But since the State made it mandatory, which
naturally engenders defiance, I just restrict myself to
exempt autos and drive without.
(:-) do we assume that you also ignore state laws against, oh say,
theft and taxes?
I'm morally aligned with the statues on theft and resigned
to taxes.
But the seatbelt laws are well outside the proper realm of
the government.
As mentioned here recently, we either have a government of
limited enumerated powers or we do not.
Well... as I posted previously, your state receives a rather
astonishingly large amount of money from the Federal Government and if
you take their money you have to play to their tune :-)
The question is, "why do the Feds tax people and then use it to bribe
them?
Why not simply stop taxing them?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Because the racket is not 1:1. Which would be bad enough.
There's significant diversion to friends and allies not to
mention the policy influence aspect.
On 3/26/2025 6:50 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:48 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest
fear mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is
huge, far worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data
showing that's false.
There may not be any greater risk than any other activity, but that
doesn't mean that wearing a helmet won't protect you when your head
hits the asphalt.
Which is also true when running (as Mark does), when walking (I've had
friends seriously injured while walking on concrete sidewalks) and
when doing other things with non-zero risk of brain injury.
so, because people don't wear walking helmets, they shouldn't wear
cycling helmets....got it.
If activity A causes more TBI deaths than activity B - whether measured
in total (i.e. "cost to society") or, say, in lifetime odds of death (as
in "odds of dying by...") or in, say, number of deaths per mile (for >transportation modes) - then why should activity B get subjected to
helmet nagging when activity A does not?
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You >obviously don't believe that, but that just means you have more reading
to do.
I'm a helmet wearer. I've always counseled people riding on public
roadways or riding for performance to wear helmets. For going on a
casual, low-risk ride on a smooth recreational rail trail, not much
of an issue and I've even gone out for such rides without one (as
recently as our trip to Aruba last year). But any time I'm going out
on the road or any ride at a 'fitness' level or higher, I always wear
one.
Of course you do. And you wear special shorts, shoes, jerseys, gloves,
jackets and all the rest. I'm not trying to talk you out of any of
that kit.
But understand, until about 1980, "fitness" and competitive cyclists
wore all that stuff - but no helmets. It wasn't until the false
propaganda about unusual brain injury risk appeared that the foam hat
became part of the costume.
And you're ignoring "All of which would have required trips to the ER
for stitches. For that reason alone it's worth it to me to wear one",
for which there is scant data from the 1980s.
Yes, stitches are regrettable. But stitches on the head are no more
serious than stitches on the elbow or knee. Yet I see very few articles
of any type calling for elbow and knee protectors for all bike rides.
What we get instead are tales saying "I got a cut on my head! I was
lucky I didn't DIE!!!"
40+ years of commuting, training, and racing have left me with a
number of incidents where I hit my head hard enough to damage the
helmet.
Funny thing - I've had a couple of those that I remember. Except I
wasn't wearing a helmet.
You _surmise_ the hits were hard enough to damage the helmet. You don't
know that because you weren't wearing one.
That's funny! We're supposed to believe every "My helmet saved my life!"
tale based on those personal impact estimates, but you can't believe my
tales even though you (probably) don't remember the details?
Some might say that's strong evidence of your bias!
(I can relate the incidents yet again, if you like.)
How many trips to the ER did you have to take to get stitches in your
head? I've had two even with the helmet. In both those cases the helmet
was shattered. You can believe I wouldn't have suffered any more injury
than a few stitches if you wish, I believe otherwise.
Believe what you like. I'll not dispute your specific instances -
although, again, you'd probably do better to take fewer risks.
But I think it's obvious that most "My helmet saved my life!!!" and "My >helmet prevented a concussion!!!" claims are mistaken. Why? Because
there are hundreds of such claims across the country each year; there
has never been a corresponding drop in the number of cycling deaths or >concussions. Regarding concussions, the needle isn't even moving in the
right direction.
Helmets are _very_ easily damaged. It's part of the marketing strategy
- a minor bump can damage it. If one takes a bump, you're advised to
immediately replace it, even if no damage is visible. And some
companies still claim you should replace it every few years, just in
case... or because they want the sales.
Read up on crumple zones - if the helmet doesn't absorb the impact, it
goes into your skull. Yes, it's designed to do that, not to get you to
buy a new one, but to protect your head, and yes, despite the cherry
picked data you present, they work.
They work despite no observed drop in fatalities?
The do crumple. They are oversized and fragile and easily dented. If the >cycling accessories industries could find a way to sell garishly
colored, greatly oversized styrofoam cycling shoes, then every dented
toe box would lead to a claim that "My protective cycling shoes SAVED MY >FOOT!" ;-)
I can't say for sure it protected me from any brain injury, but I
_do_ know it's protected me from bashing my head on rocks, trees,
signposts, asphalt, walls, cars... - All of which would have required
trips to the ER for stitches. For that reason alone it's worth it to
me to wear one.
And of course, you're allowed to. Please keep in mind I'm talking
about normal riding, which for most people never involves any of those
inicidents. BTW, if I had such a list of events, I'd consider revising
my riding style.
It's a risk of competition that I'm willing to take.
I choose my risks with more care. I'll post about some of my risk >compensation later.
On 3/26/2025 10:16 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 5:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could
argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances
of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't
interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
There's data out there indicating that people wearing helmets do crash
more (and show up in ER more) than people without helmets.
Irrelevant, even if it were true. Statistical analysis on injuries with
vs sans helmets take that into account.
Nope. Here's why:
The typical "case-control" study design - that is, counting head
injuries (usually) or brain injuries in those presenting to ER, is built
on the assumption that the sample presenting to ER is representative of
the cylcling population as a whole. There's a significant amount of data >showing that's not the case. Specifically, people wearing helmets
present to ER more than the general cycling population.
The easiest example to find is the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper. That
team of doctors was all in on helmet promotion before they published
their "case-control" study claiming 85% protection. They had just
completed street surveys of the study area that found ~3% of cyclists
were wearing helmets. But the cyclists presenting to ER had 21% wearing >helmets. IOW, a person wearing a helmet was seven times more likely to
show up in ER.
Why would that be? There are various possibilities. One might be that
the most nervous people would be the first to cave in to helmet fear >mongering, and when they felt a head bump they thought "Omigosh, I might >die!" and went to ER just to be sure. Another might be that helmeted
people might suffer more head (or really, helmet) strikes with the
ground just because the helmet is bigger than the head. (Evolution, like
of reflexes and neck muscles, etc. tends to be efficient, i.e. nothing >extra.) It might be that the people in helmets had better insurance
coverage and didn't fear ER expense.
There were other differences between the "cases" and "controls," as well
as between both groups and the general population - as explained here: >https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html and that is generally the case. >Another study by a Dr. Crocker of Austin, TX was performed specifically
to promote the idea of an all-ages mandatory helmet law (MHL). Crocker's >study failed to find significant benefit from helmets, largely because
he included a confounding factor almost always missed: Alchohol
consumption. He found that drinking then riding significantly increased
risk of brain injury, but riding sober without a helmet did not have >significantly more risk than riding with a helmet. This is important,
because (almost?) all other pro-helmet studies have not recorded blood >alcohol content, and there's no way to retroactively know which of the >injured no-helmet folks were tipsy.
(No, it's not
because those without helmets didn't survive, as some have claimed.)
While not a direct mechanical cause if injuries, some studies - and
many, many posted discussion remarks - indicate that people wearing
helmets are indulging in "risk compensation" meaning "Hey, I'm wearing
a helmet do I can take more risks." (I did that today, but I'll
probably wait until tomorrow to post about it.) We've had people post
here that they would never do the risky mountain biking they do
without the helmet. We've had people say "I would never ride that busy
road without a helmet."
Risk compensation is probably near-universal with lots of "safety"
devices. It's not inappropriate as long as the increase in risk is
commesurate with the increase in protection.
Again irrelevant. The Moral Hazard argument has a place, but it isn't in
the discussion of whether helmets are protective or not.
If you're restricting discussion to mechanical effectiveness, you're
correct. If you're allowing discussion on overall reduction in brain
injury due to widespread helmet use, you're wrong. If a person takes >additional risks because of overestimating his invulnerability, he's
likely to pay for the indiscretion. And almost all helmet promotion is >intended to trigger widespread use in hopes of reducing total injury
rates or counts.
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less than
people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test.
"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature claiming
a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about
that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be
over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph impact),
it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a problem
than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain caused far
more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet protrudes at least
an inch from the head, providing a longer lever arm for glancing
blows, potentially worsening rotational acceleration. (Note that a
bare head's slippery hair and very loose scalp are probably
evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The helmet makes those
ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
On 3/26/2025 3:31 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski<sigh> I have never told anyone "not to wear helmets."
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:27 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Half of all deaths under 40 are automobile accidents.
Despite seat belts and air bags, of course. Yet nobody nags at motorists >>> to wear helmets.
In fact, I'll bet that when driving to or from the start of a ride, all
the helmet wearing cyclists in this group leave their helmets somewhere
in the car instead of wearing them. Because they're inside the car,
where far more brain injuries occur, they refuse to take advantage of
the added protection they so avidly proclaim!
Go figure!
But why do you nag at people not to wear helmets. Nobody is going to
change their minds about it.
I'm telling people that others should not tell people to wear helmets, >because bicycling is NOT unusually dangerous, and helmets are nowhere
near as protective as people have been led to believe. And I'm pointing
out that scaring people away from riding is detrimental.
I'm point out false propaganda.
On 3/26/2025 12:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:47:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:16 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 5:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could >>>>>> argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances >>>>>> of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't >>>>>> interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
There's data out there indicating that people wearing helmets do crash >>>>> more (and show up in ER more) than people without helmets.
Irrelevant, even if it were true. Statistical analysis on injuries with >>>> vs sans helmets take that into account.
Nope. Here's why:
The typical "case-control" study design - that is, counting head
injuries (usually) or brain injuries in those presenting to ER, is built >>> on the assumption that the sample presenting to ER is representative of
the cylcling population as a whole. There's a significant amount of data >>> showing that's not the case. Specifically, people wearing helmets
present to ER more than the general cycling population.
The easiest example to find is the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper. That
team of doctors was all in on helmet promotion before they published
their "case-control" study claiming 85% protection. They had just
completed street surveys of the study area that found ~3% of cyclists
were wearing helmets. But the cyclists presenting to ER had 21% wearing
helmets. IOW, a person wearing a helmet was seven times more likely to
show up in ER.
Why would that be? There are various possibilities. One might be that
the most nervous people would be the first to cave in to helmet fear
mongering, and when they felt a head bump they thought "Omigosh, I might >>> die!" and went to ER just to be sure. Another might be that helmeted
people might suffer more head (or really, helmet) strikes with the
ground just because the helmet is bigger than the head. (Evolution, like >>> of reflexes and neck muscles, etc. tends to be efficient, i.e. nothing
extra.) It might be that the people in helmets had better insurance
coverage and didn't fear ER expense.
There were other differences between the "cases" and "controls," as well >>> as between both groups and the general population - as explained here:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html and that is generally the case.
Another study by a Dr. Crocker of Austin, TX was performed specifically
to promote the idea of an all-ages mandatory helmet law (MHL). Crocker's >>> study failed to find significant benefit from helmets, largely because
he included a confounding factor almost always missed: Alchohol
consumption. He found that drinking then riding significantly increased
risk of brain injury, but riding sober without a helmet did not have
significantly more risk than riding with a helmet. This is important,
because (almost?) all other pro-helmet studies have not recorded blood
alcohol content, and there's no way to retroactively know which of the
injured no-helmet folks were tipsy.
(No, it's not
because those without helmets didn't survive, as some have claimed.) >>>>>
While not a direct mechanical cause if injuries, some studies - and
many, many posted discussion remarks - indicate that people wearing
helmets are indulging in "risk compensation" meaning "Hey, I'm wearing >>>>> a helmet do I can take more risks." (I did that today, but I'll
probably wait until tomorrow to post about it.) We've had people post >>>>> here that they would never do the risky mountain biking they do
without the helmet. We've had people say "I would never ride that busy >>>>> road without a helmet."
Risk compensation is probably near-universal with lots of "safety"
devices. It's not inappropriate as long as the increase in risk is
commesurate with the increase in protection.
Again irrelevant. The Moral Hazard argument has a place, but it isn't in >>>> the discussion of whether helmets are protective or not.
If you're restricting discussion to mechanical effectiveness, you're
correct. If you're allowing discussion on overall reduction in brain
injury due to widespread helmet use, you're wrong. If a person takes
additional risks because of overestimating his invulnerability, he's
likely to pay for the indiscretion. And almost all helmet promotion is
intended to trigger widespread use in hopes of reducing total injury
rates or counts.
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less than
people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test.
"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature claiming >>>> a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about
that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be >>>>> over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph impact), >>>>> it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a problem
than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain caused far >>>>> more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet protrudes at least >>>>> an inch from the head, providing a longer lever arm for glancing
blows, potentially worsening rotational acceleration. (Note that a
bare head's slippery hair and very loose scalp are probably
evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The helmet makes those
ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
"The easiest example to find is the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper. That
team of doctors was all in on helmet promotion before they published
their "case-control" study claiming 85% protection. They had just
completed street surveys of the study area that found ~3% of cyclists
were wearing helmets. But the cyclists presenting to ER had 21%
wearing helmets. IOW, a person wearing a helmet was seven times more
likely to show up in ER."
<EYEROLL> A study with no real numbers? How big was the sample? 25
or 2500? What percentage of the riders were racers who were lilkely to
be wearing helmets and more likely to have accidents? How many who
went to the ER had head injuries? How many had scrapes and bruises on
other parts of their bodies?
Some people will believe any "study" that supports their agenda,
without examining the data.
Anyone here want to take bets on which of us has actually gone to the >library, dug out the proper issue of the New England Journal of
Medicine, read that study, printed it out, read some of the tons of >discussion it generated, crunched through some of the math, etc?
Clue: It's not the guy complaining "... without examining the data."
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 02:24:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder(chomp)
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:41:02 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
??? >>>https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/02/cycling-fatalities-almost-halved-since-introduction-of-mandatory
"The evidence is in: Australian mandatory helmet laws brought in to >>>reduce fatalities in cycling have worked, with a world-first study of >>>such laws at UNSW Sydney.... showing they led to an immediate 46% drop
in fatalities and have saved billions of dollars in medical costs
since 1990."
How much of that was because people stopped riding bicycles?
I have no idea but Australia has reported that in some areas that
mandated 100% helmets use the number of participants decreased.
On 3/26/2025 1:09 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:02:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:31 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski<sigh> I have never told anyone "not to wear helmets."
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:27 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Half of all deaths under 40 are automobile accidents.
Despite seat belts and air bags, of course. Yet nobody nags at
motorists
to wear helmets.
In fact, I'll bet that when driving to or from the start of a ride,
all
the helmet wearing cyclists in this group leave their helmets
somewhere
in the car instead of wearing them. Because they're inside the car,
where far more brain injuries occur, they refuse to take advantage of >>>>> the added protection they so avidly proclaim!
Go figure!
But why do you nag at people not to wear helmets. Nobody is going to
change their minds about it.
<LOL> You argue that they serve no purpose. That's essentually the
same thing. It's dishonest for you claim otherwise.
On 3/26/2025 1:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:02:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski:-) This really is funny! Mr. Tricycle Rider is mad because I'm
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:31 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski<sigh> I have never told anyone "not to wear helmets."
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:27 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Half of all deaths under 40 are automobile accidents.
Despite seat belts and air bags, of course. Yet nobody nags at motorists >>>>> to wear helmets.
In fact, I'll bet that when driving to or from the start of a ride, all >>>>> the helmet wearing cyclists in this group leave their helmets somewhere >>>>> in the car instead of wearing them. Because they're inside the car,
where far more brain injuries occur, they refuse to take advantage of >>>>> the added protection they so avidly proclaim!
Go figure!
But why do you nag at people not to wear helmets. Nobody is going to
change their minds about it.
<LOL> You argue that they serve no purpose. That's essentually the
same thing. It's dishonest for you claim otherwise.
presenting evidence that bike helmets are not normally needed.
Mr. Tricycle Rider has proudly said he never wears a helmet.
Mr. Tricycle Rider is compelled to argue with me even on issues on which
we agree!
The man needs help.
On 25 Mar 2025 20:00:21 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and >>>>>>> far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows >>>>>>> quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities >>>>>>> or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking >>>>
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There are a few countries that have mandated helmets, such as Australia
which to the best of the knowledge the rate of injuries and extent didnt >> change ie helmets at a population level made no difference, which is one of >> the reasons it fails to get though legislation in uk when ever someone
tries a private bill.
Roger Merriman
??? https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/02/cycling-fatalities-almost-halved-since-introduction-of-mandatory
"The evidence is in: Australian mandatory helmet laws brought in to
reduce fatalities in cycling have worked, with a world-first study of
such laws at UNSW Sydney.... showing they led to an immediate 46% drop
in fatalities and have saved billions of dollars in medical costs
since 1990."
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 20:00:21 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking >>>>>
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message. >>>>>
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>>> either fatalities or concussions?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There are a few countries that have mandated helmets, such as Australia
which to the best of the knowledge the rate of injuries and extent didnt >>> change ie helmets at a population level made no difference, which is one of >>> the reasons it fails to get though legislation in uk when ever someone
tries a private bill.
Roger Merriman
???
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/02/cycling-fatalities-almost-halved-since-introduction-of-mandatory
"The evidence is in: Australian mandatory helmet laws brought in to
reduce fatalities in cycling have worked, with a world-first study of
such laws at UNSW Sydney.... showing they led to an immediate 46% drop
in fatalities and have saved billions of dollars in medical costs
since 1990."
Note that they are comparing cycling fatalities per general population not the rate of cyclists, note that Australia bar a covid boom, which has gone now, that the rate of number of cyclists in the population has continued to decline so absolutely cycle fatalities per population absolutely will be down!
Are helmet laws purely to blame for the decline in cyclists? Probably not Australia is very car centric, much more so than UK for example.
It’s very much poor political use of statistics!
Roger Merriman
On 3/25/2025 12:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Let me take a rare opportunity to agree with Catrike Rider. The lower
Two wheel recumbents can be trickier than standard diamond frames
because the center of grvity is lower. You can feel the difference
between sitting upright and being on the drops with a regular bike.
polar moment of inertia about the ground means recumbents are trickier
to balance. On the other hand, antique Ordinaries or Penny Farthings are amazingly easy to balance even at near zero speed.
On 3/26/2025 1:09 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:02:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:31 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:37:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski<sigh> I have never told anyone "not to wear helmets."
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:27 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Half of all deaths under 40 are automobile accidents.
Despite seat belts and air bags, of course. Yet nobody nags at
motorists
to wear helmets.
In fact, I'll bet that when driving to or from the start of a ride, >>>>>> all
the helmet wearing cyclists in this group leave their helmets
somewhere
in the car instead of wearing them. Because they're inside the car, >>>>>> where far more brain injuries occur, they refuse to take advantage of >>>>>> the added protection they so avidly proclaim!
Go figure!
But why do you nag at people not to wear helmets. Nobody is going to >>>>> change their minds about it.
<LOL> You argue that they serve no purpose. That's essentually the
same thing. It's dishonest for you claim otherwise.
Dumbass, you routinely claim team sports and participation in group >activities are useless. By your perverted logic, you're telling everyone
they shouldn't participate in team sports and group act ivies.
For you to claim otherwise is dishonest
On 3/25/2025 1:33 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
I can't understand why anyone argues about wearing helmets other than
about making it mandatory. Whether on not a person wears a helmet has
no effect on anyone else. As for laws about adults wearing them, they
are gradually falling by the wayside.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Get it required by organisations and organised events which is admittedly a >> low percentage of cyclists ie folks who are club members and/or Sportives
etc which often requires helmets commonly due to insurance.
Even the insurance is usually a red herring. I ran our club's annual
century for about eight years. We carried insurance through the League
of American Bicyclists, and I was very familiar with their required
liability release. It said absolutely nothing about helmets.
When I ran the ride, we did not require helmets. Almost everyone wore
one anyway. (It's part of America's "avid cyclist" costume, and fashion
is weird and powerful.) We had very few crashes and never a liability problem.
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up >>>> at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my
claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a
couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes,
etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've
ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed. You are supposed to be an
engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from total time from turning the meter on? All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up >>>> at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a
couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes,
etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've
ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed.
You are supposed to be an engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from total time from turning the meter on?
All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
On 3/26/2025 9:54 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.
Example: "You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
I have. I'm sure I pay more attention to this issue than you do.
On 3/26/2025 6:50 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:48 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest
fear mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is
huge, far worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data
showing that's false.
There may not be any greater risk than any other activity, but that
doesn't mean that wearing a helmet won't protect you when your head
hits the asphalt.
Which is also true when running (as Mark does), when walking (I've
had friends seriously injured while walking on concrete sidewalks)
and when doing other things with non-zero risk of brain injury.
so, because people don't wear walking helmets, they shouldn't wear
cycling helmets....got it.
If activity A causes more TBI deaths than activity B - whether measured
in total (i.e. "cost to society") or, say, in lifetime odds of death (as
in "odds of dying by...") or in, say, number of deaths per mile (for transportation modes) - then why should activity B get subjected to
helmet nagging when activity A does not?
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You obviously don't believe that,
but that just means you have more readingSince that's a conclusion to a strawman argument, I'll suggest you have
to do.
I'm a helmet wearer. I've always counseled people riding on public
roadways or riding for performance to wear helmets. For going on a
casual, low-risk ride on a smooth recreational rail trail, not much
of an issue and I've even gone out for such rides without one (as
recently as our trip to Aruba last year). But any time I'm going out
on the road or any ride at a 'fitness' level or higher, I always
wear one.
Of course you do. And you wear special shorts, shoes, jerseys,
gloves, jackets and all the rest. I'm not trying to talk you out of
any of that kit.
But understand, until about 1980, "fitness" and competitive cyclists
wore all that stuff - but no helmets. It wasn't until the false
propaganda about unusual brain injury risk appeared that the foam hat
became part of the costume.
And you're ignoring "All of which would have required trips to the ER
for stitches. For that reason alone it's worth it to me to wear one",
for which there is scant data from the 1980s.
Yes, stitches are regrettable. But stitches on the head are no more
serious than stitches on the elbow or knee. Yet I see very few articles
of any type calling for elbow and knee protectors for all bike rides.
What we get instead are tales saying "I got a cut on my head! I was
lucky I didn't DIE!!!"
40+ years of commuting, training, and racing have left me with a
number of incidents where I hit my head hard enough to damage the
helmet.
Funny thing - I've had a couple of those that I remember. Except I
wasn't wearing a helmet.
You _surmise_ the hits were hard enough to damage the helmet. You
don't know that because you weren't wearing one.
That's funny! We're supposed to believe every "My helmet saved my life!"
tale based on those personal impact estimates, but you can't believe my
tales even though you (probably) don't remember the details?
Some might say that's strong evidence of your bias!
(I can relate the incidents yet again, if you like.)
How many trips to the ER did you have to take to get stitches in your
head? I've had two even with the helmet. In both those cases the
helmet was shattered. You can believe I wouldn't have suffered any
more injury than a few stitches if you wish, I believe otherwise.
Believe what you like. I'll not dispute your specific instances -
although, again, you'd probably do better to take fewer risks.
But I think it's obvious that most "My helmet saved my life!!!" and "My helmet prevented a concussion!!!" claims are mistaken. Why? Because
there are hundreds of such claims across the country each year; there
has never been a corresponding drop in the number of cycling deaths or concussions. Regarding concussions, the needle isn't even moving in the
right direction.
Helmets are _very_ easily damaged. It's part of the marketing
strategy - a minor bump can damage it. If one takes a bump, you're
advised to immediately replace it, even if no damage is visible. And
some companies still claim you should replace it every few years,
just in case... or because they want the sales.
Read up on crumple zones - if the helmet doesn't absorb the impact, it
goes into your skull. Yes, it's designed to do that, not to get you to
buy a new one, but to protect your head, and yes, despite the cherry
picked data you present, they work.
They work despite no observed drop in fatalities?
The do crumple. They are oversized and fragile and easily dented. If the cycling accessories industries could find a way to sell garishly
colored, greatly oversized styrofoam cycling shoes, then every dented
toe box would lead to a claim that "My protective cycling shoes SAVED MY FOOT!" ;-)
I can't say for sure it protected me from any brain injury, but I
_do_ know it's protected me from bashing my head on rocks, trees,
signposts, asphalt, walls, cars... - All of which would have
required trips to the ER for stitches. For that reason alone it's
worth it to me to wear one.
And of course, you're allowed to. Please keep in mind I'm talking
about normal riding, which for most people never involves any of
those inicidents. BTW, if I had such a list of events, I'd consider
revising my riding style.
It's a risk of competition that I'm willing to take.
I choose my risks with more care. I'll post about some of my risk compensation later.
On 3/26/2025 10:18 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:58 PM, cyclintom wrote:Bullshit sensationalism on your part.
There are so few really serious injuries. But the propaganda machine
While the tests of Wavecell by specialists is pretty conclusive the
only hard evidence is statistical analysis which requires a pretty
long time with bicycles since there are so few really serious injuries. >>>
will insist that you're very likely to die if you leave your driveway
without a styrofoam cap.
I'm reporting bullshit sensationalism on _their_ part.
On 3/26/2025 10:16 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 5:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could
argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your
chances of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light.
Helmets don't interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
There's data out there indicating that people wearing helmets do
crash more (and show up in ER more) than people without helmets.
Irrelevant, even if it were true. Statistical analysis on injuries
with vs sans helmets take that into account.
Nope. Here's why:
The typical "case-control" study design - that is, counting head
injuries (usually) or brain injuries in those presenting to ER, is built
on the assumption that the sample presenting to ER is representative of
the cylcling population as a whole. There's a significant amount of data showing that's not the case. Specifically, people wearing helmets
present to ER more than the general cycling population.
The easiest example to find is the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper.
That
team of doctors was all in on helmet promotion before they published
their "case-control" study claiming 85% protection. They had just
completed street surveys of the study area that found ~3% of cyclists
were wearing helmets. But the cyclists presenting to ER had 21% wearing helmets. IOW, a person wearing a helmet was seven times more likely to
show up in ER.
Why would that be? There are various possibilities. One might be that
the most nervous people would be the first to cave in to helmet fear mongering, and when they felt a head bump they thought "Omigosh, I might die!" and went to ER just to be sure. Another might be that helmeted
people might suffer more head (or really, helmet) strikes with the
ground just because the helmet is bigger than the head. (Evolution, like
of reflexes and neck muscles, etc. tends to be efficient, i.e. nothing extra.) It might be that the people in helmets had better insurance
coverage and didn't fear ER expense.
There were other differences between the "cases" and "controls," as well
as between both groups and the general population - as explained here: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html and that is generally the case. Another study by a Dr. Crocker of Austin, TX was performed specifically
to promote the idea of an all-ages mandatory helmet law (MHL). Crocker's study failed to find significant benefit from helmets, largely because
he included a confounding factor almost always missed: Alchohol
consumption. He found that drinking then riding significantly increased
risk of brain injury, but riding sober without a helmet did not have significantly more risk than riding with a helmet. This is important,
because (almost?) all other pro-helmet studies have not recorded blood alcohol content, and there's no way to retroactively know which of the injured no-helmet folks were tipsy.
(No, it's not
because those without helmets didn't survive, as some have claimed.)
While not a direct mechanical cause if injuries, some studies - and
many, many posted discussion remarks - indicate that people wearing
helmets are indulging in "risk compensation" meaning "Hey, I'm
wearing a helmet do I can take more risks." (I did that today, but
I'll probably wait until tomorrow to post about it.) We've had people
post here that they would never do the risky mountain biking they do
without the helmet. We've had people say "I would never ride that
busy road without a helmet."
Risk compensation is probably near-universal with lots of "safety"
devices. It's not inappropriate as long as the increase in risk is
commesurate with the increase in protection.
Again irrelevant. The Moral Hazard argument has a place, but it isn't
in the discussion of whether helmets are protective or not.
If you're restricting discussion to mechanical effectiveness, you're
correct.
If you're allowing discussion on overall reduction in brain
injury due to widespread helmet use, you're wrong. If a person takes additional risks because of overestimating his invulnerability, he's
likely to pay for the indiscretion. And almost all helmet promotion is intended to trigger widespread use in hopes of reducing total injury
rates or counts.
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less than
people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test.
"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature
claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about
that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be
over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph impact),
it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a problem
than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain caused far
more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet protrudes at least
an inch from the head, providing a longer lever arm for glancing
blows, potentially worsening rotational acceleration. (Note that a
bare head's slippery hair and very loose scalp are probably
evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The helmet makes those
ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
On Wed Mar 26 15:17:42 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:53 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically >>>>>> the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up >>>>>> at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a >>>> couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes, >>>> etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've
ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed.
No, they don't, dumbass. Autostop was on option on the better models up
until the early 90's. Most models only captured total time, not moving
time. If Frank has an older model it's more likely it only capture total
time, so if he's seeing faster than 11 with total time, he's likely
going faster than you.
You are supposed to be an engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from total time from turning the meter on?
It's settable on your garmin, so you have that off, and 11 is about
right if you average in all the stops, but why would you want to average
in all your stops? You can get both moving time and total time on your
display at the time.
All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
Yup, actually a professor of Mechanical Engineering
You and Frank are welcome to come down here and try to ride with us.
Why you can show us the kind of endurance it takes to rise 2, 200 mile days with an average speed of 20 mph.
But you're nothing but a Fred.
And your "professor of mechanical engineering" can demonstrade that terrific 54 mph so that we all know what he is talking about.
On 3/26/2025 10:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years >>>>>>> shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-
Finds- More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-
Says-it- Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-
surprise- you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-
biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
I'm willing to discuss any of those. A couple quick points: Several
discuss "head injury" not "brain injury." Bike helmet promoters bank
heavily on conflating the two in order to scare the public. The most
notorious example I'm aware of was the notorious Thompson & Rivara
1989 paper that generated the false claim of "85% benefit." T&R
actually counted abrasions of the ears as "head injuries" when
computing benefit. Yes, technically, it's part of the head - but it's
not what people have been led to think about.
Your entire argument seems to center around "what people have been
told/ led to believe" rather than the actual data.
Second quick point: That T&R study has been thoroughly discredited.
One issue which should make it obviously invalid to anyone with
scientific knowledge is that its levels of protection have _never_
been corroborated by subsequent studies.
There's much more I could say, but those are quick and easy points.
As to documentation of my points above: Yes, you can find
enthusiastic propaganda making it sound like bicycling is a major
source of brain injury.
Not relevant to whether or not helmets are effective.
Please understand: While I believe the protective value of bike helmets
is _greatly_ exaggerated, I'm not claiming they have zero protective
value. Had I worn one the day I bumped my head on the canoe hanging in
my garage, it would have hurt a lot less. And I'll repeat that the
almost miraculous "85% benefit!!!" has never been corroborated in over
35 years of trying. A court actually ruled its claim should be removed
from U.S. government documents - but it's still widely quoted as fact by helmet promoters.
; But if it doesn't give numbers for other sources, the claim has not
been demonstrated. You'd have to compare with other activities - for
example, descending stairs; or walking in a city; or riding in a car.
Or heck, just look up the total numbers for brain injuries in America
and compare with bicycling.
Not relevant to whether of not helmets are effective.
It _is_ relevant to whether we should be discouraging cycling by
claiming it's safe only if you wear a weird oddball hat! "Dangerizing" bicycling that way does no good for bicycling or for society.
The easiest data to find, in my experience, is brain injury fatality
data. What I've found is over 55,000 TBI fatalities per year in the
U.S. In that time period there were about 500 bicycle TBI fatalities,
so significantly less than 1% of the total.
Will we ever get helmets on the other 99%?
So now your adopting Johns argument against assault weapons bans? "far
more people die of cancer than are killed in mass shootings with
assault weapons, don't you care about people with cancer?"
In other words, the number of TBIs from bike accidents isn't relevant
to the discussion on whether helmets are effective or not.
Regarding relevance: What are you trying to achieve?
Do you promote
helmets in hopes of lowering society's overall medical expenses?
If so,
it's probably a losing proposition. The only study I know of on the cost effectiveness of helmet use (in Australia) found it to be a net loss.
Are you saying "Forget the monetary cost. Brain injuries are so terrible
we need to prevent them any way possible."?
If so, you're ignoring much
bigger sources of brain injury. Why would you do that?
Are you focused ONLY on calling attention to bicycling's dangers?
Then I
submit you're causing more harm than good. Bicycling is NOT very
dangerous, especially ordinary bicycling, as opposed to gonzo mountain
biking or road racing - which is what I suspect was related to your
crashes. By emphasizing your crashes and pretending they are normal and demand protection,
you're dissuading people from riding. That means they
miss the health benefits of riding, and society misses the benefits of
more people on bikes.
Have they reduced bicycling concussions, the most common (albeit
mild) brain injury?
Yes
I've found no evidence.
You're ignoring it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/
"Evaluating the impact of cycle helmet use on severe traumatic brain
injury and death in a national cohort of over 11000 pedal cyclists: a
retrospective study from the NHS England Trauma Audit and Research
Network dataset".
"There was a significantly higher crude 30-day mortality in un-
helmeted cyclists 5.6% (4.8%–6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8%
(1.4%–2.2%) (p<0.001)."
"Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in severe
traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%–20.4%) versus 47.6%
(1211, 45.6%–49.5%) (p<0.001), intensive care unit requirement 19.6%
(797, 18.4%–20.8%) versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%–28.9%) (p<0.001) and
neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%–3.1%) versus 8.5% (217,
7.5%– 9.7%) (p<0.001)."
In the years that helmets suddenly went from rare to common, there
was no corresponding drop in bike fatalities.
"There was a significantly higher crude 30-day mortality in un-
helmeted cyclists 5.6% (4.8%–6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8%
(1.4%–2.2%) (p<0.001)."
Pedestrian fatalities actually dropped more during that time. And
recorded bike concussions have actually risen.
More people are riding. This gives a better data set to show results
such as "Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in
severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%–20.4%) versus
47.6% (1211, 45.6%–49.5%)"
Maybe I should have said "I found no good evidence." National counts
show no drop in either fatalities or concussions that are attributable
to helmet uptake.
And again, the trouble with such "case-control"
studies is the assumption that those presenting to ER are adequately representative of all people riding bikes. I submit they are not.
To put it in blunter terms: If you're riding badly enough that you're
going to crash hard enough to go to ER, you may be better off wearing a helmet. But most people _never_ crash that hard, in part because they
are more sensible about risks. Most people still do not wear helmets
even here in the U.S., let alone worldwide; and only a tiny percentage
of unlucky or unskilled or gonzo riders ever end up in ER.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
On Wed Mar 26 18:51:39 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically >>>>>> the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up >>>>>> at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my
claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a >>>> couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes, >>>> etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've
ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed. You are supposed to be an
engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 >>> minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from >>> total time from turning the meter on? All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
As do Garmin connect and Strava ie doesn?t count the stationary time, aka
waiting at traffic lights or time at the cafe or so on.
I have an 830 and a 1030 and neither one of those has an autostop
feature. And if you push "stop" on the clock, when you restart, they
restart the mileage from zero. Now it has saved the previous ride and you
can downlooad the same total mileage. But if you leave it, it measures
the time from start to finish regardless of speed.
On Wed Mar 26 15:57:28 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:16 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 5:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could >>>>>> argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your
chances of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light.
Helmets don't interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
There's data out there indicating that people wearing helmets do
crash more (and show up in ER more) than people without helmets.
Irrelevant, even if it were true. Statistical analysis on injuries
with vs sans helmets take that into account.
Nope. Here's why:
The typical "case-control" study design - that is, counting head
injuries (usually) or brain injuries in those presenting to ER, is built >>> on the assumption that the sample presenting to ER is representative of
the cylcling population as a whole. There's a significant amount of data >>> showing that's not the case. Specifically, people wearing helmets
present to ER more than the general cycling population.
I've already presented several studies that show more parity. You've
been reading old literature.
The easiest example to find is the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper.
Yup, a 35 year old paper....that's currently valid alright, no one has
done any substantive work in the area in the last 35 years...<eyeroll>
That
team of doctors was all in on helmet promotion before they published
their "case-control" study claiming 85% protection. They had just
completed street surveys of the study area that found ~3% of cyclists
were wearing helmets. But the cyclists presenting to ER had 21% wearing
helmets. IOW, a person wearing a helmet was seven times more likely to
show up in ER.
Why would that be? There are various possibilities. One might be that
the most nervous people would be the first to cave in to helmet fear
mongering, and when they felt a head bump they thought "Omigosh, I might >>> die!" and went to ER just to be sure. Another might be that helmeted
people might suffer more head (or really, helmet) strikes with the
ground just because the helmet is bigger than the head. (Evolution, like >>> of reflexes and neck muscles, etc. tends to be efficient, i.e. nothing
extra.) It might be that the people in helmets had better insurance
coverage and didn't fear ER expense.
In 1989, that was likely the case.
There were other differences between the "cases" and "controls," as well >>> as between both groups and the general population - as explained here:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html and that is generally the case.
Another study by a Dr. Crocker of Austin, TX was performed specifically
to promote the idea of an all-ages mandatory helmet law (MHL). Crocker's >>> study failed to find significant benefit from helmets, largely because
he included a confounding factor almost always missed: Alchohol
consumption. He found that drinking then riding significantly increased
risk of brain injury, but riding sober without a helmet did not have
significantly more risk than riding with a helmet. This is important,
because (almost?) all other pro-helmet studies have not recorded blood
alcohol content, and there's no way to retroactively know which of the
injured no-helmet folks were tipsy.
Again, try to keep current:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/
"There was an association between alcohol intoxication and the failure
to wear a cycle helmet (p<0.001). However, there was no correlation
between crude mortality and alcohol consumption (3.5%?vs 3.2% NS); this
was true for those wearing a helmet (2.4% vs 1.8%) at the point of
injury and those not (6% vs 3.8%)"
(No, it's not
because those without helmets didn't survive, as some have claimed.) >>>>>
While not a direct mechanical cause if injuries, some studies - and
many, many posted discussion remarks - indicate that people wearing
helmets are indulging in "risk compensation" meaning "Hey, I'm
wearing a helmet do I can take more risks." (I did that today, but
I'll probably wait until tomorrow to post about it.) We've had people >>>>> post here that they would never do the risky mountain biking they do >>>>> without the helmet. We've had people say "I would never ride that
busy road without a helmet."
Risk compensation is probably near-universal with lots of "safety"
devices. It's not inappropriate as long as the increase in risk is
commesurate with the increase in protection.
Again irrelevant. The Moral Hazard argument has a place, but it isn't
in the discussion of whether helmets are protective or not.
If you're restricting discussion to mechanical effectiveness, you're
correct.
Thank you
If you're allowing discussion on overall reduction in brain
injury due to widespread helmet use, you're wrong. If a person takes
additional risks because of overestimating his invulnerability, he's
likely to pay for the indiscretion. And almost all helmet promotion is
intended to trigger widespread use in hopes of reducing total injury
rates or counts.
And it does, even with "risk adjusted" studies. From the above study:
"There was an increased crude 30-day mortality in the group not wearing
a cycle helmet 5.6% (4.8%?6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8%
(1.4%?2.2%) (p<0.001); corresponding risk adjusted excess survival rates
(W scores)22 were 1.1 (?0.1 to 2.2) and 2.4 (1.3?3.6), respectively."
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less than
people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test.
"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature
claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets _prevent_
serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not prevent it.
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about
that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be >>>>> over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph impact), >>>>> it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a problem
than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain caused far >>>>> more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet protrudes at least >>>>> an inch from the head, providing a longer lever arm for glancing
blows, potentially worsening rotational acceleration. (Note that a
bare head's slippery hair and very loose scalp are probably
evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The helmet makes those
ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data to
support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can cause
more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the exact opposite.
For what reason would Thompson and Rivera have their work double checked?
They haven't run any modern tests of Penisilin either.
Studies have to be paid for, and one that covered all of the bases doesn't need to be repeated.
On Tue Mar 25 16:18:50 2025 AMuzi wrote:bike.
On 3/25/2025 4:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 12:25:34 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
You could prove that helmets don't always prevent head injuries, but
not that they don't sometimes do it. Proving a negative is difficult
task.
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't interfere with vision on a normal road
"Not preventing a head injury" is different from "causing
ahead injury".
You're welcome
The grammar on Catrike's posting appeared so be saying that while helmets may prevent some injuries they may cause others.
On Wed Mar 26 18:51:39 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically >>>>>> the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up >>>>>> at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders
naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my
claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a >>>> couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes, >>>> etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've
ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed. You are supposed to be an
engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 >>> minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from >>> total time from turning the meter on? All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
As do Garmin connect and Strava ie doesn?t count the stationary time, aka
waiting at traffic lights or time at the cafe or so on.
I have an 830 and a 1030 and neither one of those has an autostop feature.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:41:02 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 20:00:21 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI >>>>>>>> counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes >>>>>>>> fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking >>>>>
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message. >>>>>
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>>> either fatalities or concussions?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There are a few countries that have mandated helmets, such as Australia >>>which to the best of the knowledge the rate of injuries and extent didn�t >>>change ie helmets at a population level made no difference, which is one of >>>the reasons it fails to get though legislation in uk when ever someone >>>tries a private bill.
Roger Merriman
??? >>https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/02/cycling-fatalities-almost-halved-since-introduction-of-mandatory
"The evidence is in: Australian mandatory helmet laws brought in to
reduce fatalities in cycling have worked, with a world-first study of
such laws at UNSW Sydney.... showing they led to an immediate 46% drop
in fatalities and have saved billions of dollars in medical costs
since 1990."
How much of that was because people stopped riding bicycles?
On 3/26/2025 4:25 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Mar 26 15:57:28 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:16 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 5:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head
injury? You could
argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might
increase your
chances of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets
are light.
Helmets don't interfere with vision on a normal road
bike.
There's data out there indicating that people wearing
helmets do
crash more (and show up in ER more) than people
without helmets.
Irrelevant, even if it were true. Statistical analysis
on injuries
with vs sans helmets take that into account.
Nope. Here's why:
The typical "case-control" study design - that is,
counting head
injuries (usually) or brain injuries in those presenting
to ER, is built
on the assumption that the sample presenting to ER is
representative of
the cylcling population as a whole. There's a
significant amount of data
showing that's not the case. Specifically, people
wearing helmets
present to ER more than the general cycling population.
I've already presented several studies that show more
parity. You've
been reading old literature.
The easiest example to find is the 1989 Thompson &
Rivara paper.
Yup, a 35 year old paper....that's currently valid
alright, no one has
done any substantive work in the area in the last 35
years...<eyeroll>
That
team of doctors was all in on helmet promotion before
they published
their "case-control" study claiming 85% protection. They
had just
completed street surveys of the study area that found
~3% of cyclists
were wearing helmets. But the cyclists presenting to ER
had 21% wearing
helmets. IOW, a person wearing a helmet was seven times
more likely to
show up in ER.
Why would that be? There are various possibilities. One
might be that
the most nervous people would be the first to cave in to
helmet fear
mongering, and when they felt a head bump they thought
"Omigosh, I might
die!" and went to ER just to be sure. Another might be
that helmeted
people might suffer more head (or really, helmet)
strikes with the
ground just because the helmet is bigger than the head.
(Evolution, like
of reflexes and neck muscles, etc. tends to be
efficient, i.e. nothing
extra.) It might be that the people in helmets had
better insurance
coverage and didn't fear ER expense.
In 1989, that was likely the case.
There were other differences between the "cases" and
"controls," as well
as between both groups and the general population - as
explained here:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html and that is
generally the case.
Another study by a Dr. Crocker of Austin, TX was
performed specifically
to promote the idea of an all-ages mandatory helmet law
(MHL). Crocker's
study failed to find significant benefit from helmets,
largely because
he included a confounding factor almost always missed:
Alchohol
consumption. He found that drinking then riding
significantly increased
risk of brain injury, but riding sober without a helmet
did not have
significantly more risk than riding with a helmet. This
is important,
because (almost?) all other pro-helmet studies have not
recorded blood
alcohol content, and there's no way to retroactively
know which of the
injured no-helmet folks were tipsy.
Again, try to keep current:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/
"There was an association between alcohol intoxication
and the failure
to wear a cycle helmet (p<0.001). However, there was no
correlation
between crude mortality and alcohol consumption (3.5%?vs
3.2% NS); this
was true for those wearing a helmet (2.4% vs 1.8%) at the
point of
injury and those not (6% vs 3.8%)"
(No, it's not
because those without helmets didn't survive, as some
have claimed.)
While not a direct mechanical cause if injuries, some
studies - and
many, many posted discussion remarks - indicate that
people wearing
helmets are indulging in "risk compensation" meaning
"Hey, I'm
wearing a helmet do I can take more risks." (I did
that today, but
I'll probably wait until tomorrow to post about it.)
We've had people
post here that they would never do the risky mountain
biking they do
without the helmet. We've had people say "I would
never ride that
busy road without a helmet."
Risk compensation is probably near-universal with lots
of "safety"
devices. It's not inappropriate as long as the
increase in risk is
commesurate with the increase in protection.
Again irrelevant. The Moral Hazard argument has a
place, but it isn't
in the discussion of whether helmets are protective or
not.
If you're restricting discussion to mechanical
effectiveness, you're
correct.
Thank you
If you're allowing discussion on overall reduction in brain
injury due to widespread helmet use, you're wrong. If a
person takes
additional risks because of overestimating his
invulnerability, he's
likely to pay for the indiscretion. And almost all
helmet promotion is
intended to trigger widespread use in hopes of reducing
total injury
rates or counts.
And it does, even with "risk adjusted" studies. From the
above study:
"There was an increased crude 30-day mortality in the
group not wearing
a cycle helmet 5.6% (4.8%?6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists
1.8%
(1.4%?2.2%) (p<0.001); corresponding risk adjusted excess
survival rates
(W scores)22 were 1.1 (?0.1 to 2.2) and 2.4 (1.3?3.6),
respectively."
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far,
far less than
people are led to believe. Look up the standardization
test.
"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any
literature
claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims
helmets _prevent_
serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not
prevent it.
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury?
Curiosity about
that surged once it became clear that helmeted
cyclists seemed to be
over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was
established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a
14 mph impact),
it became known that linear deceleration was far less
of a problem
than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and
brain caused far
more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet
protrudes at least
an inch from the head, providing a longer lever arm
for glancing
blows, potentially worsening rotational acceleration.
(Note that a
bare head's slippery hair and very loose scalp are
probably
evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The helmet
makes those
ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have
no data to
support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and
thus can cause
more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the
exact opposite.
For what reason would Thompson and Rivera have their work
double checked?
The Thompson and Rivera study covered 235 riders from one
year of data and only 7% wore helmets. The Dodds et al
study (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/)
reviewed data on 6621 ER patients over 5 years of which 65%
were wearing helmets.
Medicine was different back then, Access to data, the kind
of data, treatment methods all have changed since 1989.
They haven't run any modern tests of Penisilin either.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?
term=penicillin&filter=datesearch.y_1
Within the past year there have been over 2500 white papers
on penicillin research.
Studies have to be paid for, and one that covered all of
the bases doesn't need to be repeated.
Science is like a shark. If it doesn't keep moving, it dies.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to >>>>>>>>>> TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling >>>>>>>>>> causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian >>>>>>>>>> travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the >>>>>>>>>> years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either >>>>>>>>>> fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report- >>>>>>> Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related- Accidents-CPSC- >>>>>>> Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety- statistics-may- >>>>>>> surprise-you? srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message. >>>>>>>
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>>>>> either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to show the >>>>> use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these evil minded scoundrels
are doing.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain >>>>>>>>>>>> injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to >>>>>>>>>>>> TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling >>>>>>>>>>>> causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian >>>>>>>>>>>> travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the >>>>>>>>>>>> years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either >>>>>>>>>>>> fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report- >>>>>>>>> Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related- Accidents-CPSC- >>>>>>>>> Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety- statistics-may- >>>>>>>>> surprise-you? srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain- safe- >>>>>>>>> while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head- Injuries-in? >>>>>>>>> autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message. >>>>>>>>>
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>>>>>>> either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to show the >>>>>>> use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the probabilities for >>>>>> larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given incident >>>>>> can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. But I'll >>>>> point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ is at >>>>> risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet. Example: >>>>> "You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post a number of >>>references so we all can be aware of that these evil minded scoundrels >>>are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up ridiculous childish >>strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if he had something >>important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and demands that Junior >>explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray to "The God of >Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 20:29:06 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 16:18:50 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 12:25:34 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
You could prove that helmets don't always prevent head injuries, but >>>>> not that they don't sometimes do it. Proving a negative is difficult >>>>> task.
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could
argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances
of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't
interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
"Not preventing a head injury" is different from "causing
ahead injury".
You're welcome
The grammar on Catrike's posting appeared so be saying that while
helmets may prevent some injuries they may cause others.
No, I did not say helmets may cause injuries. Read it again.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:41:08 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/26/2025 7:36 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 06:19:13 -0400, zen cycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:Yes, I must admit that I never heard of "flag football" and had to
Well, lets see.... Is "touch football" the same sport as "football"? >>>>> Not to my knowledge and yes we used to play it... when we had to keep >>>>> clean... say for school.
Yes, it is, the only difference is that tackling is not allowed.
So... are you so stupid as to confuse a game for kids with almost no >>>>> contact with a game played by 240 lb players that hit each other with >>>>> as much as 1600 lbs of force?
Are you so stupid as to assume - like the floriduh dumbass - that
becasuse you've never heard of something it doesn't exist?
Do these look like kids, you willfully ignorant dumbass?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bODdMqc-7c0
look it up on the Web, but my mention of "a game played by 240 lb
players that hit each other with as much as 1600 lbs of force?"
should have given you a clue to what I was talking about.
You were conflating schoolyard flag football with professional football,
obviously unaware that competitive flag football with 200+ pound
participants has an international championship schedule, and arrogant
enough not to bother to look it up because you were arguing from an
exclusively contrarian position with Frank.
But, as they say, "Any port in a storm" ands I suppose you have to a
be imaginative to dream up all your snide remarks.
The fact that you're being arrogant enough not to bother to look it up
because you were arguing from an exclusively contrarian position with
Frank puts you firmly in willfully ignorant floriduh dumbass territory.
Look what up? I said "football" and later provided even more
information "a game played by 240 lb players that hit each other with
as much as 1600 lbs of force?" and you come up with something called
flag football....
It doesn't say much for your reading comprehension, does it.
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You
obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking.
Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You
obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking.
Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special
protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem
inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less than
people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test.
"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature
claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets
_prevent_ serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not prevent
it.
Seems to me you're focusing on the difference between "_always_
prevents" (which was never stated by anyone) and "can reduce severity."
The latter is more honest, but is NOT how helmets are promoted.
Try
googling "Do bike helmets prevent serious head trauma?" After reading
AI's "Yes" try follow the resulting links.
And logically, if a helmet did prevent serious head trauma in one out of
ten cases, that would justify a "Yes" answer. In those cases a helmet
would have done what was asked.
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about
that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to
be over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph
impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a
problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain
caused far more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet
protrudes at least an inch from the head, providing a longer lever
arm for glancing blows, potentially worsening rotational
acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair and very loose
scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The
helmet makes those ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data to
support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can
cause more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the exact
opposite.
Well, I suppose the "thus" is not totally proven. I don't see how you
can claim they do not provide a longer lever arm for glancing blows.
A
helmet absolutely is larger than the head. The radius upon which a
glancing force acts on a helmet is certainly larger than the radius on a
bare head. And BTW, that means that a certain number of misses must be converted to hits. I hope that's obvious to you.
In any case, _something_ seems to be causing a correlation between
rising helmet use and rising cyclist concussions. If it's not the
factors I speculated on, I'd be interested in hearing your theories.
See https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/i-team-concussions-on-the-rise- among-cyclists/
https://www.slatervecchio.com/blog/bike-helmets-dont-protect-against- concussions/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-helmets-should-address-concussion- risk-scientists-say-1.1367454
On 3/26/2025 4:19 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:51 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Regarding relevance: What are you trying to achieve?
A factual discussion on helmet efficacy.
OK, I'd say we're doing that.
Do you promote helmets in hopes of lowering society's overall medical
expenses?
nope.
OK, I'm wondering why you promote bike helmets.
Are you saying "Forget the monetary cost. Brain injuries are so
terrible we need to prevent them any way possible."?
nope
Then again, I'm wondering why you promote bike helmets.
Are you focused ONLY on calling attention to bicycling's dangers?
nope
So I wonder why you advocate helmets only for bike riding, not for other
more important causes of TBI injuries and fatalities.
you're dissuading people from riding. That means they miss the health
benefits of riding, and society misses the benefits of more people on
bikes.
I promote riding in general. If I didn't I wouldn't have run boy scout
cycling merit badge rides, cub scout cycling safety classes, worked a
few stints with one of my sponsor shops at the town 'safe bicycling'
days.
I promote helmets because they work.
But your promotion efforts seem to apply only to bicycling. I very much
doubt that you really feel foam helmets "work" _only_ in bicyclists.
I think at the root of your helmet enthusiasm is a belief that bicycling really is a very important source of serious and/or fatal TBI.
But it is
not. And spreading the view that it is extra dangerous in that way must dissuade people from riding bikes.
I don't know of any other normal, everyday activity for which people are advised to strap on protective helmets. The closest I can come is motorcycling, which is over 30 times more deadly per hour than
bicycling, and without bicycling's counterbalancing health benefits.
Maybe I should have said "I found no good evidence." National counts
show no drop in either fatalities or concussions that are
attributable to helmet uptake.
Not true. Maybe it was in 1989, but not now.
Please show me the national cycling fatality counts with drops
corresponding to increased bike helmet use. I've already linked several articles documenting increased concussion rates despite increased use of
bike helmets.
And again, the trouble with such "case-control" studies is the
assumption that those presenting to ER are adequately representative
of all people riding bikes. I submit they are not.
To put it in blunter terms: If you're riding badly enough that you're
going to crash hard enough to go to ER, you may be better off wearing
a helmet. But most people _never_ crash that hard, in part because
they are more sensible about risks. Most people still do not wear
helmets even here in the U.S., let alone worldwide; and only a tiny
percentage of unlucky or unskilled or gonzo riders ever end up in ER.
So lets ignore it...back to Johns assault weapons argument.
Let's not grossly exaggerate it, and cause people to lose the health and societal benefits that cycling provides!
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
I never said it was, I said helmets work. Current science proves they do.
We disagree. Most (not all) "case-control" studies _of cyclists
presenting to ER_ indicate some benefit; but again, "cyclists presenting
to ER" are almost by definition different from almost all cyclists. Data regarding all cyclists shows no obvious benefit regarding fatalities or concussions.
The entire reason for examining those samples is to make predictions and recommendations regarding the entire population. We certainly have
enough long term data to show that the predicted benefits of widespread helmet use have not occurred in the general population.
And the low level of actual risk makes the entire exercise pretty
worthless. Researchers should instead be studying the benefits of
helmets on much bigger sources of TBI: motoring and pedestrian travel.
Oh, and just walking around one's home, which IIRC causes more TBI than
all the above.
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 20:29:06 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 16:18:50 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 12:25:34 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
You could prove that helmets don't always prevent head injuries, but >>>>>> not that they don't sometimes do it. Proving a negative is difficult >>>>>> task.
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could
argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances >>>>> of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't >>>>> interfere with vision on a normal road bike.
"Not preventing a head injury" is different from "causing
ahead injury".
You're welcome
The grammar on Catrike's posting appeared so be saying that while
helmets may prevent some injuries they may cause others.
No, I did not say helmets may cause injuries. Read it again.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Indeed that argument is fairly weak and ends up being more demographic
though with the rise of hire bikes even that is probably dead.
It�s an overreach.
Roger Merriman
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to >>>>>>>>>>>>> TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling >>>>>>>>>>>>> causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian >>>>>>>>>>>>> travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the >>>>>>>>>>>>> years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either >>>>>>>>>>>>> fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report- >>>>>>>>>> Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related- Accidents-CPSC- >>>>>>>>>> Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety- statistics-may- >>>>>>>>>> surprise-you? srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain- safe- >>>>>>>>>> while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head- Injuries-in? >>>>>>>>>> autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your >>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to show the >>>>>>>> use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the probabilities for >>>>>>> larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given incident >>>>>>> can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. But I'll >>>>>> point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ is at >>>>>> risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet. Example: >>>>>> "You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these evil minded scoundrels >>>> are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things. Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling >>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report- >>>>>>>>>>> Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related- Accidents-CPSC- >>>>>>>>>>> Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety- statistics-may- >>>>>>>>>>> surprise-you? srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain- safe- >>>>>>>>>>> while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head- Injuries-in? >>>>>>>>>>> autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your >>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to show the >>>>>>>>> use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the probabilities for >>>>>>>> larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given incident >>>>>>>> can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. But I'll >>>>>>> point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ is at >>>>>>> risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet. Example: >>>>>>> "You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ >>>>> is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.". >>>>>
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these evil minded scoundrels >>>>> are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up ridiculous childish >>>> strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if he had something >>>> important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things. Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of Rep
Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made 2028 campaign
ad. With any luck, she will make an ass of herself more
between now and then.
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the >>path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to >>push through said bushes!
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You >>>>>> obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking. >>>> Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special
protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem >>>> inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra
protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with >>the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It�s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one�s keys/gloves etc at >>cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population >>studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie >>Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isn�t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are >>large, so I don�t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty >>of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility >>cyclists.
It�s such a non issue at least here.
Roger Merriman
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so
I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next >husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I >did....." (:-])
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the >> path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to >> push through said bushes!
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You >>>>>> obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking. >>>> Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special
protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem >>>> inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra
protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with >> the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It’s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one’s keys/gloves etc at >> cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population >> studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie
Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isn’t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are
large, so I don’t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility >> cyclists.
It’s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so
I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I did....." (:-])
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the >>> path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to >>> push through said bushes!
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You >>>>>>> obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now >>>>> seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking. >>>>> Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special >>>>> protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem >>>>> inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra
protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with >>> the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It�s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one�s keys/gloves etc at >>> cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population >>> studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie
Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isn�t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are
large, so I don�t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty >>> of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility >>> cyclists.
It�s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so
I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next
husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I
did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy
a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:17:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You >>>>>>>> obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now >>>>>> seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking. >>>>>> Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special >>>>>> protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem >>>>>> inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra >>>>> protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to
push through said bushes!
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with >>>> the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It’s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one’s keys/gloves etc at
cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population
studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie
Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isn’t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are >>>> large, so I don’t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility >>>> cyclists.
It’s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so
I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next
husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I
did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy
a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-)
A hundred dollars for a shirt? I don't think so.
Am 27.03.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:17:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those
metrics. You
obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you >>>>>>> now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than
walking.
Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from
special
protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two
points seem
inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra >>>>>> protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
rides the
path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the
helmet to
push through said bushes!
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye
protection with
the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It’s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one’s keys/gloves >>>>> etc at
cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does
population
studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie >>>>> Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isn’t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so >>>>> are
large, so I don’t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all
see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some
utility
cyclists.
It’s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so
I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next >>>> husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I >>>> did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy
a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-)
A hundred dollars for a shirt? I don't think so.
For a shirt that lasts 25 years that's value for money.
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>> traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's
contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC- >>>>>>>>>>> Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related- Accidents- >>>>>>>>>>> CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety- statistics-may- >>>>>>>>>>> surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain- safe- >>>>>>>>>>> while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head- Injuries-in? >>>>>>>>>>> autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this >>>>>>>>>>> message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your >>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not >>>>>>>>>> preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to
show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the probabilities >>>>>>>> for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given
incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. But >>>>>>> I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_
is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.
Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ >>>>> is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.". >>>>>
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these evil minded scoundrels >>>>> are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up ridiculous childish >>>> strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if he had something >>>> important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things. Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of Rep Crocker (Texas
30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made 2028 campaign ad. With any luck, she
will make an ass of herself more between now and then.
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank
Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of
serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis,
bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes"
charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer
than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic
data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not
preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-
Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-
statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-
your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/
article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-
Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the
point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once
again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful
ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle
helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was
possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the
probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in
any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some
reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say
that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a
helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post
a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these evil
minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if
he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he
has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I
can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to
convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose
if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray
to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah"
but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each
other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way"
and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things. Look
at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever
that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as
"hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of Rep
Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made 2028
campaign ad. With any luck, she will make an ass of
herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the >> path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to >> push through said bushes!
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You >>>>>> obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking. >>>> Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special
protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem >>>> inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra
protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with >> the visor from rain/hail and so on.
Its also quite handy as sort of man bag to put ones keys/gloves etc at >> cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population >> studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie
Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isnt likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are
large, so I dont feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty >> of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility >> cyclists.
Its such a non issue at least here.
Roger Merriman
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so
I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I did....." (:-])
On 3/27/2025 9:45 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:17:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:A hundred dollars for a shirt? I don't think so.
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra >>>>>>> protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those
metrics. You
obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you >>>>>>>> now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than
walking.
Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from
special
protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two
points seem
inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views? >>>>>>>
rides the
path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the
helmet to
push through said bushes!
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye
protection with
the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It’s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one’s keys/gloves >>>>>> etc at
cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does
population
studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie >>>>>> Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isn’t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so >>>>>> are
large, so I don’t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all >>>>>> see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some >>>>>> utility
cyclists.
It’s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so >>>>> I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next >>>>> husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I >>>>> did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy >>>> a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-) >>>
For a shirt that lasts 25 years that's value for money.
Paying more mony for a quality item - Pearl Izumi, Garneau, Rafa - pays
off in the long run. I have 30+ year-old shorts that I still commute in,
20+ year old jerseys, Mavic shoes pushing 20 years, all of which still
get regular use...well worth the extra cost.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not >>>>>>>>>>>> preventing
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News- Releases/2021/New-CDC- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle- Related-
Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-
statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep- your-brain- >>>>>>>>>>>>> safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/ article/150/3/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing- Head-
Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of >>>>>>>>>>>>> this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your >>>>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance. >>>>>>>>>>>>
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to >>>>>>>>>>> show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the
probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given >>>>>>>>>> incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. >>>>>>>>> But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ >>>>>>>>> is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet. >>>>>>>>> Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that
_anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.". >>>>>>>
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet advertisements but >>>>>>> I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post a number of >>>>>>> references so we all can be aware of that these evil minded
scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up ridiculous
childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if he had
something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he has changed to >>>>>> his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and demands that Junior >>>>>> explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I can see, is not, >>>>>> at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to convince people >>>>>> not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose if some people >>>>>> choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray to "The God of >>>>> Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each other "in the >>>>> name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the contrary Frankie >>>>> will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way" and all should >>>>> adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things. Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of Rep Crocker
(Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made 2028 campaign ad. With any
luck, she will make an ass of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here. Show us who she is and how she thinks.
I'm big on free speech. And quoting someone in her own words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank
Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of
serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis,
bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most
"causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer
than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And
historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not
preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-
Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-
safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-
your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/
article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-
Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the
point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out,
once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful
ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle
helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was
possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on
the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency
incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in
any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some
reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say
that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without
a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could
post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these evil
minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if
he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he
has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I
can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to
convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose
if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray
to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each
other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way"
and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever
that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as
"hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of Rep
Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made 2028
campaign ad. With any luck, she will make an ass of
herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here. Show us who she is and how she
thinks.
I'm big on free speech. And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-stands- by-green-cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn’t a pimp cane, I don’t know
what is.”
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling Abbot
"hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We can
speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she knows
it, but for someone who herself shouted at the president
during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_ level is
beyond hypocritical.
On 3/27/2025 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics.
You obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than
walking. Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value
from special protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those
two points seem inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra
protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
That explains your personal choice, based on your "view" and your
"feel." But that doesn't explain your statement "I've always counseled
people riding on public roadways or riding for performance to wear
helmets." In fact, "Don't wear them if you don't feel that need" sounds
quite opposite.
I often discuss actual data when I see that people's "feelings" are
belied by good data. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to wear what
you like. But it is certainly true that some personal ideas and
"feelings" are objectively incorrect.
Am 27.03.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:17:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You >>>>>>>>> obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now >>>>>>> seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking. >>>>>>> Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special >>>>>>> protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem >>>>>>> inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra >>>>>> protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to
push through said bushes!
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with
the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It�s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one�s keys/gloves etc at >>>>> cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population
studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie >>>>> Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isn�t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are >>>>> large, so I don�t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility
cyclists.
It�s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so
I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next >>>> husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I >>>> did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy
a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-)
A hundred dollars for a shirt? I don't think so.
For a shirt that lasts 25 years that's value for money.
On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preventing
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41598-023-35728-x >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News- Releases/2021/New- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle- Related- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle- safety- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep- your-brain- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/ article/150/3/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing- Head- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to >>>>>>>>>>>>> show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the
probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given >>>>>>>>>>>> incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. >>>>>>>>>>> But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that
_anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet. >>>>>>>>>>> Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that >>>>>>>>> _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a
helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet advertisements but >>>>>>>>> I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post a number of >>>>>>>>> references so we all can be aware of that these evil minded
scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up ridiculous
childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if he had
something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he has changed to >>>>>>>> his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and demands that
Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I can see, is >>>>>>>> not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to convince
people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose if some
people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray to "The
God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah" but the >>>>>>> adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each other "in the >>>>>>> name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the contrary Frankie >>>>>>> will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way" and all should >>>>>>> adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things. Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever that means) >>>>>> over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as "hot wheels." >>>>>>
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of Rep Crocker
(Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made 2028 campaign ad. With any
luck, she will make an ass of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here. Show us who she is and how she thinks.
I'm big on free speech. And quoting someone in her own words, no
matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-stands- by-green-
cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn’t a pimp cane, I don’t know what is.” >>
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling Abbot "hot
wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We can speculate on what
bobo knows about pimps and how she knows it, but for someone who
herself shouted at the president during a SOTU address to scold Green
on _any_ level is beyond hypocritical.
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what he thinks. Meh.
Some Republicans over reacted (including Ms Boebert). Which only shows
their pettiness.
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget commensurate
with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a better place. (fat chance of
that)
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank
Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of
serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis,
bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes"
charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer
than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic
data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not
preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-
Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-
statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-
your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/
article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-
Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the
point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, once
again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful
ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle
helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was
possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the
probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in
any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some
reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say
that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a
helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post
a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these evil
minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if
he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he
has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I
can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to
convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose
if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray
to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah"
but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each
other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way"
and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things. Look
at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever
that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as
"hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of Rep
Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made 2028
campaign ad.� With any luck, she will make an ass of
herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here. Show us who she is and how she
thinks.
I'm big on free speech. And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
How one would go about proving that bicycle helmets are not >>>>>>>>>>> preventing
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC- >>>>>>>>>>>> Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related- Accidents- >>>>>>>>>>>> CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety- statistics-may- >>>>>>>>>>>> surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain- safe- >>>>>>>>>>>> while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/ >>>>>>>>>>>> e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head- Injuries-in? >>>>>>>>>>>> autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this >>>>>>>>>>>> message.
The point of this message is to point out, once again, your >>>>>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful ignorance. >>>>>>>>>>>
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was possible to >>>>>>>>>> show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on the probabilities >>>>>>>>> for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in any given
incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some reservations. But >>>>>>>> I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ >>>>>>>> is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.
Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say that _anyone_ >>>>>> is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without a helmet.". >>>>>>
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet advertisements but >>>>>> I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these evil minded scoundrels >>>>>> are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up ridiculous childish >>>>> strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if he had something >>>>> important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and demands that Junior >>>>> explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I can see, is not, >>>>> at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to convince people >>>>> not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose if some people >>>>> choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things. Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of Rep Crocker (Texas
30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made 2028 campaign ad.� With any luck, she
will make an ass of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
On 3/27/2025 8:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature
than people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test. >>>>>>
claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets
_prevent_ serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not
prevent it.
Seems to me you're focusing on the difference between "_always_
prevents" (which was never stated by anyone) and "can reduce severity."
Yes, I am.
The latter is more honest, but is NOT how helmets are promoted.
So you're saying helmets are promoted as preventing serious head
trauma, yet your only "evidence" is:
Try googling "Do bike helmets prevent serious head trauma?" After
reading AI's "Yes" try follow the resulting links.
And logically, if a helmet did prevent serious head trauma in one out
of ten cases, that would justify a "Yes" answer. In those cases a
helmet would have done what was asked.
Yet there is no published literature from any manufacturer or advocacy
group which supports your claim 'thats how helmets are promoted'. an
AI answer does not qualify as marketing literature.
I don't have a stock of marketing literature, but I suppose we can both search online. There's this: https://sonomasaferoutes.org/sites/default/ files/lesson_7.pdf that states "Why Are Helmets Important? (10 minutes)
• Ask students to articulate why wearing helmets is important (because
they protect against brain injury, disability, and death). Share that
helmet use has been estimated to reduce brain injury risk by 85 percent."
So "they protect against brain injury, disability, and death" (with the
never corroborated "85%" that's been disallowed in U.S. government publications). Perhaps you'll now say "That's not _exactly_ the same wording?"
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph
impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less of >>>>>>> a problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and
brain caused far more brain injury than smacking them. But a
helmet protrudes at least an inch from the head, providing a
longer lever arm for glancing blows, potentially worsening
rotational acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair
and very loose scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to reduce
that hazard. The helmet makes those ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data to
support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can
cause more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the exact
opposite.
Well, I suppose the "thus" is not totally proven. I don't see how you
can claim they do not provide a longer lever arm for glancing blows.
I didn't. I wrote that " you have no data to support the that helmets
"provide a longer lever arm and thus can cause more injury" claim.
Every study I've link states the exact opposite."
I don't see you've linked any studies that specifically address the
lever arm!
And I'll note a parallel between your previous objection on a
related issue, and my statement:
You put high value on the word "can" by saying "... They _can_ reduce severity..." to excuse the countless times they do not. Yet you're
ignoring my statement where I'll emphasize: "... a longer lever arm and
thus CAN cause more injury."
We're both discussing possibilities, not definite 100% effects, aren't we?
A helmet absolutely is larger than the head. The radius upon which a
glancing force acts on a helmet is certainly larger than the radius
on a bare head. And BTW, that means that a certain number of misses
must be converted to hits. I hope that's obvious to you.
In terms of physics it's a logical path, but you have to purposely
ignore that are no studies done which show the added leverage of the
helmet causes more injuries than an beare head,...
Of course there are no studies on that detailed point. How on earth
would such a study be done? By testing a helmet with and without a
radius larger than a bare head?
In any case, _something_ seems to be causing a correlation between
rising helmet use and rising cyclist concussions. If it's not the
factors I speculated on, I'd be interested in hearing your theories.
See https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/i-team-concussions-on-the-
rise- among-cyclists/
https://www.slatervecchio.com/blog/bike-helmets-dont-protect-against-
concussions/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-helmets-should-address-
concussion- risk-scientists-say-1.1367454
wow...ok, first off, you're again stuck in the past. All three of
those are over 11 years old.
It's still the same universe, Zen.
Secondly, you missed one important statistic, as
stated in
"Traffic-related bike fatalities decreased despite the sharp increase
of cyclists on the road.....Fatalities were down, but brain injuries
were up".
More people wearing cycling helmets means less fatal head trauma. The
result is more _non_ fatal head trauma.
Look at the numbers, please. They're comparing 1997 to 2011 (in the same
old universe!). Wiki says 1997 had 814 bike fatalities. 2011 had 682
(one of the lowest counts ever). That difference of 132 can't possibly
be enough to explain this: “Between 1997 and 2011 the number of bike- related concussions suffered annually by American riders increased by
67%, from 9,327 to 15,546”
You've got at least 6000 concussions you
haven't explained.
On 3/27/2025 1:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/27/2025 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics.
You obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than
walking. Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value
from special protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those
two points seem inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra
protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
That explains your personal choice, based on your "view" and your
"feel." But that doesn't explain your statement "I've always counseled
people riding on public roadways or riding for performance to wear
helmets." In fact, "Don't wear them if you don't feel that need" sounds
quite opposite.
It goes like this:
"I almost always wear a helmet. If you're riding in traffic or for >performance I would advise you to also, but it's your choice".
No contradiction there at all.
I often discuss actual data when I see that people's "feelings" are
belied by good data. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to wear what
you like. But it is certainly true that some personal ideas and
"feelings" are objectively incorrect.
You've interpreted data to support your position, I've interpreted data
to support mine. The difference is that I'm right :)
On 3/27/2025 8:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature
than people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test. >>>>>>
claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets
_prevent_ serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not
prevent it.
Seems to me you're focusing on the difference between "_always_
prevents" (which was never stated by anyone) and "can reduce severity."
Yes, I am.
The latter is more honest, but is NOT how helmets are promoted.
So you're saying helmets are promoted as preventing serious head trauma,
yet your only "evidence" is:
Try googling "Do bike helmets prevent serious head trauma?" After
reading AI's "Yes" try follow the resulting links.
And logically, if a helmet did prevent serious head trauma in one out
of ten cases, that would justify a "Yes" answer. In those cases a
helmet would have done what was asked.
Yet there is no published literature from any manufacturer or advocacy
group which supports your claim 'thats how helmets are promoted'. an AI
answer does not qualify as marketing literature.
I don't have a stock of marketing literature, but I suppose we can both >search online. There's this: >https://sonomasaferoutes.org/sites/default/files/lesson_7.pdf that
states "Why Are Helmets Important? (10 minutes)
� Ask students to articulate why wearing helmets is important (because
they protect against brain injury, disability, and death). Share that
helmet use has been estimated to reduce brain injury risk by 85 percent."
So "they protect against brain injury, disability, and death" (with the
never corroborated "85%" that's been disallowed in U.S. government >publications). Perhaps you'll now say "That's not _exactly_ the same >wording?"
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph
impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less of >>>>>>> a problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and
brain caused far more brain injury than smacking them. But a
helmet protrudes at least an inch from the head, providing a
longer lever arm for glancing blows, potentially worsening
rotational acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair
and very loose scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to reduce
that hazard. The helmet makes those ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data to
support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can
cause more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the exact
opposite.
Well, I suppose the "thus" is not totally proven. I don't see how you
can claim they do not provide a longer lever arm for glancing blows.
I didn't. I wrote that " you have no data to support the that helmets
"provide a longer lever arm and thus can cause more injury" claim. Every
study I've link states the exact opposite."
I don't see you've linked any studies that specifically address the
lever arm! And I'll note a parallel between your previous objection on a >related issue, and my statement:
You put high value on the word "can" by saying "... They _can_ reduce >severity..." to excuse the countless times they do not. Yet you're
ignoring my statement where I'll emphasize: "... a longer lever arm and
thus CAN cause more injury."
We're both discussing possibilities, not definite 100% effects, aren't we?
�A helmet absolutely is larger than the head. The radius upon which a
glancing force acts on a helmet is certainly larger than the radius on
a bare head. And BTW, that means that a certain number of misses must
be converted to hits. I hope that's obvious to you.
In terms of physics it's a logical path, but you have to purposely
ignore that are no studies done which show the added leverage of the
helmet causes more injuries than an beare head,...
Of course there are no studies on that detailed point. How on earth
would such a study be done? By testing a helmet with and without a
radius larger than a bare head?
In any case, _something_ seems to be causing a correlation between
rising helmet use and rising cyclist concussions. If it's not the
factors I speculated on, I'd be interested in hearing your theories.
See https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/i-team-concussions-on-the-
rise- among-cyclists/
https://www.slatervecchio.com/blog/bike-helmets-dont-protect-against-
concussions/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-helmets-should-address-concussion-
risk-scientists-say-1.1367454
wow...ok, first off, you're again stuck in the past. All three of those
are over 11 years old.
It's still the same universe, Zen.
Secondly, you missed one important statistic, as
stated in
"Traffic-related bike fatalities decreased despite the sharp increase of
cyclists on the road.....Fatalities were down, but brain injuries were up". >>
More people wearing cycling helmets means less fatal head trauma. The
result is more _non_ fatal head trauma.
Look at the numbers, please. They're comparing 1997 to 2011 (in the same
old universe!). Wiki says 1997 had 814 bike fatalities. 2011 had 682
(one of the lowest counts ever). That difference of 132 can't possibly
be enough to explain this: �Between 1997 and 2011 the number of
bike-related concussions suffered annually by American riders increased
by 67%, from 9,327 to 15,546�? You've got at least 6000 concussions you >haven't explained.
On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank
Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis,
bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most
"causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And
historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New-CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-
Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-
safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-
your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/
article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-
Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the
point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out,
once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in willful
ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle
helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it was
possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on
the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency
incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual in
any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some
reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to say
that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride without
a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could
post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these evil
minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as if
he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so he
has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as I
can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying to
convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his nose
if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you pray
to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing each
other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only way"
and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to "censor" (whatever
that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair as
"hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of Rep
Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made 2028
campaign ad.� With any luck, she will make an ass of
herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here.� Show us who she is and how she
thinks.
I'm big on free speech.� And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-stands-
by-green-cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn�t a pimp cane, I don�t know
what is.�
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling Abbot
"hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We can
speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she knows
it, but for someone who herself shouted at the president
during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_ level is
beyond hypocritical.
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what he
thinks. Meh. Some Republicans over reacted (including Ms
Boebert). Which only shows their pettiness.
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget
commensurate with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a
better place. (fat chance of that)
On 3/27/2025 2:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank
Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source
of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis,
bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most
"causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far
fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And
historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are
not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/
PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New- CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-
Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-
safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/
keep- your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/
article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-
Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't
the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out,
once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in
willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle
helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it
was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on
the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency
incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual
in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some
reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends
to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could
post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these
evil minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as
if he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so
he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as
I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying
to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his
nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you
pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing
each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only
way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to
"censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair
as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of
Rep Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made
2028 campaign ad. With any luck, she will make an ass
of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here. Show us who she is and how
she thinks.
I'm big on free speech. And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-
stands- by-green- cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn’t a pimp cane, I don’t
know what is.”
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling
Abbot "hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We
can speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she
knows it, but for someone who herself shouted at the
president during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_
level is beyond hypocritical.
Not really, you have (somewhat) consistently been a
refreshing voice of rationalism from a conservative view
point. (FWIW, I've never claimed to be a voice of
rationalism on (especially) political issues. I may be a
loud-mouthed asshole, at least I admit it.)
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what
he thinks. Meh. Some Republicans over reacted (including
Ms Boebert). Which only shows their pettiness.
And for balance "Ms Boebert running her mouth made clear who
she is and what she thinks. Meh. Some democrats over reacted
(including Mr Green) which only shows their pettiness."
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget
commensurate with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a
better place. (fat chance of that)
You have thank Ronald "Deficits Don't Matter" Reagan to
thank for that.
On 3/27/2025 2:58 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 2:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis,
bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most
"causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far
fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And
historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/
PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New- CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-
Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-
safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/
keep- your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/
article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't
the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out,
once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in
willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle
helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it
was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on
the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency
incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual
in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some
reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends
to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could
post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these
evil minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as
if he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so
he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as
I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying
to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his
nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you
pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing
each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only
way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to
"censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair
as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of
Rep Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made
2028 campaign ad.� With any luck, she will make an ass
of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here.� Show us who she is and how
she thinks.
I'm big on free speech.� And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-
stands- by-green- cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn�t a pimp cane, I don�t
know what is.�
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling
Abbot "hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We
can speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she
knows it, but for someone who herself shouted at the
president during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_
level is beyond hypocritical.
Not really, you have (somewhat) consistently been a
refreshing voice of rationalism from a conservative view
point. (FWIW, I've never claimed to be a voice of
rationalism on (especially) political issues. I may be a
loud-mouthed asshole, at least I admit it.)
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what
he thinks. Meh. Some Republicans over reacted (including
Ms Boebert). Which only shows their pettiness.
And for balance "Ms Boebert running her mouth made clear who
she is and what she thinks. Meh. Some democrats over reacted
(including Mr Green) which only shows their pettiness."
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget
commensurate with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a
better place. (fat chance of that)
You have thank Ronald "Deficits Don't Matter" Reagan to
thank for that.
That "Just So Story" version survives as an urban myth but
the actual story is more complex. As with the disastrous
amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for tighter
immigration laws, only half the bargain happened. The other
half never did.
https://www.history.com/articles/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency
We agree though that the result was a typical fiasco of debt.
As I've bitched and moaned here before, no party and no
President (since Jackson anyway) looks good in this regard.
The DOGE effort is yet in progress, but people who follow
politics (me) are not at all hopeful for results.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:45:14 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:17:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:A hundred dollars for a shirt? I don't think so.
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra >>>>>>> protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You
obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now >>>>>>>> seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking. >>>>>>>> Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special >>>>>>>> protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem
inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views? >>>>>>>
path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to
push through said bushes!
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with
the visor from rain/hail and so on.
Its also quite handy as sort of man bag to put ones keys/gloves etc at
cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population
studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie >>>>>> Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isnt likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are >>>>>> large, so I dont feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility
cyclists.
Its such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so >>>>> I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next >>>>> husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I >>>>> did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy >>>> a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-) >>>
For a shirt that lasts 25 years that's value for money.
I have ordinary t-shirts older than that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:45:14 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:17:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:A hundred dollars for a shirt? I don't think so.
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra >>>>>>>> protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You
obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now >>>>>>>>> seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking.
Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special >>>>>>>>> protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem
inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views? >>>>>>>>
path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to
push through said bushes!
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with
the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It?s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one?s keys/gloves etc at
cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population
studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie >>>>>>> Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on.
But UK isn?t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are >>>>>>> large, so I don?t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility
cyclists.
It?s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so >>>>>> I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next >>>>>> husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I >>>>>> did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy >>>>> a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-) >>>>
For a shirt that lasts 25 years that's value for money.
I have ordinary t-shirts older than that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If not used much yes, I have clothes from last century and so on, but they >where not a 2 pound/dollar cheap t shirt, which if one handles them often >feel lighter, and don�t last.
And that�s just general clothes let alone sports kit that will be washed >every time. Or used in abrasive useage be that wet gritty roads to full on >bog crossing with the MTB which is hard on kit.
Roger Merriman
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:46:01 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/27/2025 2:58 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 2:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most
"causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/
PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New- CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-
Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-
safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/
keep- your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/
article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in
willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle
helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it
was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on
the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency
incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual
in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some
reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends
to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could
post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these
evil minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as
if he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so
he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as
I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying
to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his
nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you
pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing
each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only
way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to
"censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair
as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of
Rep Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made
2028 campaign ad. With any luck, she will make an ass
of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here. Show us who she is and how
she thinks.
I'm big on free speech. And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-
stands- by-green- cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn’t a pimp cane, I don’t
know what is.”
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling
Abbot "hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We
can speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she
knows it, but for someone who herself shouted at the
president during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_
level is beyond hypocritical.
Not really, you have (somewhat) consistently been a
refreshing voice of rationalism from a conservative view
point. (FWIW, I've never claimed to be a voice of
rationalism on (especially) political issues. I may be a
loud-mouthed asshole, at least I admit it.)
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what
he thinks. Meh. Some Republicans over reacted (including
Ms Boebert). Which only shows their pettiness.
And for balance "Ms Boebert running her mouth made clear who
she is and what she thinks. Meh. Some democrats over reacted
(including Mr Green) which only shows their pettiness."
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget
commensurate with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a
better place. (fat chance of that)
You have thank Ronald "Deficits Don't Matter" Reagan to
thank for that.
That "Just So Story" version survives as an urban myth but
the actual story is more complex. As with the disastrous
amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for tighter
immigration laws, only half the bargain happened. The other
half never did.
https://www.history.com/articles/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency
We agree though that the result was a typical fiasco of debt.
As I've bitched and moaned here before, no party and no
President (since Jackson anyway) looks good in this regard.
The DOGE effort is yet in progress, but people who follow
politics (me) are not at all hopeful for results.
What do you expect when they make a big fuss over third grade level
name calling and introduce bills and start legal proceedings they know beforehand have no possibility to succeed.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 3/27/2025 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:46:01 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/27/2025 2:58 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 2:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Frank has number of times, mentioned this
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/
PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New- CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep- your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in
willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it
was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency
incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some
reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends
to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could
post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these
evil minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as
if he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so
he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as
I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying
to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his
nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you
pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing
each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only
way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to
"censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair
as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of
Rep Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made
2028 campaign ad.� With any luck, she will make an ass
of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here.� Show us who she is and how
she thinks.
I'm big on free speech.� And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-
stands- by-green- cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn�t a pimp cane, I don�t
know what is.�
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling
Abbot "hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We
can speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she
knows it, but for someone who herself shouted at the
president during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_
level is beyond hypocritical.
Not really, you have (somewhat) consistently been a
refreshing voice of rationalism from a conservative view
point. (FWIW, I've never claimed to be a voice of
rationalism on (especially) political issues. I may be a
loud-mouthed asshole, at least I admit it.)
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what
he thinks. Meh. Some Republicans over reacted (including
Ms Boebert). Which only shows their pettiness.
And for balance "Ms Boebert running her mouth made clear who
she is and what she thinks. Meh. Some democrats over reacted
(including Mr Green) which only shows their pettiness."
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget
commensurate with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a
better place. (fat chance of that)
You have thank Ronald "Deficits Don't Matter" Reagan to
thank for that.
That "Just So Story" version survives as an urban myth but
the actual story is more complex. As with the disastrous
amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for tighter
immigration laws, only half the bargain happened. The other
half never did.
https://www.history.com/articles/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency
We agree though that the result was a typical fiasco of debt.
As I've bitched and moaned here before, no party and no
President (since Jackson anyway) looks good in this regard.
The DOGE effort is yet in progress, but people who follow
politics (me) are not at all hopeful for results.
What do you expect when they make a big fuss over third grade level
name calling and introduce bills and start legal proceedings they know
beforehand have no possibility to succeed.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That's mostly theater and image making fluff.
The real agendae are under the table, as Sen Menendez (11
years for bribery by Egypt). In a perfect world, Sen Roger
Marshall (R, KS) will be his cellmate for a long while after
his pathetic advocacy for Qatar today (yes that Qatar, the
people who fund jihadis to kill Jews and US servicemen).
On 3/27/2025 8:26 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 4:19 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:51 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Regarding relevance: What are you trying to achieve?
A factual discussion on helmet efficacy.
OK, I'd say we're doing that.
No, you're hung up on marketing.
Well, "hung up" on the weird promotion of bike helmets as hugely
important, and the related false claim that bicycling is so dangerous
that foam protective hats are really necessary.
OK, I'm wondering why you promote bike helmets.
Are you saying "Forget the monetary cost. Brain injuries are so
terrible we need to prevent them any way possible."?
nope
Then again, I'm wondering why you promote bike helmets.
Are you focused ONLY on calling attention to bicycling's dangers?
nope
So I wonder why you advocate helmets only for bike riding, not for
other more important causes of TBI injuries and fatalities.
And I'm still wondering.
This is true,I promote helmets because they work.
But your promotion efforts seem to apply only to bicycling. I very
much doubt that you really feel foam helmets "work" _only_ in bicyclists. >>
I think at the root of your helmet enthusiasm is a belief that
bicycling really is a very important source of serious and/or fatal TBI.
Nope.
So explain. You now seem to say they would work for other causes of TBI.
And you say bicycling is not a very important or serious risk of TBI.
But you still tell people just riding on roads that they should wear
helmets. Apparently you don't do the same for people walking near roads, >despite evidence of greater risk. Nor for people riding in cars, who
dominate the TBI statistics for transportation.
And I've stated repeatedly that there are times that I _don't_ wear a
helmet. It's all about the risk mitigation. A casual ride on a rail
trial isn't likely going to end up with me hitting the pavement, a tree,
a truck....etc.
"I've always counseled people riding on public roadways ... to wear
helmets." All public roadways?
You've linked old articles. I've already linked new ones that show the
data. Here they are again since it seems you;ve chose to ignore them
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
?? That's 1999! And I can give lots of detail on that Cochrane study,
the one in which Thompson and Rivara used inclusion criteria that
allowed primarily their own studies, and rejected several pertinent
studies that reached different conclusions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
There seemed to be no data addressing the severely increased national
count of bicyclist concussions.
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-
More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-
Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
That had no information on helmet efficacy. It did note a significant >increase in cyclist deaths, but it certainly did not point to a
corresponding decrease in helmet use, which would have been necessary to
hint at your point. The "helmets are important" bit is just an
uncorroborated opinion in that piece.
It's clear to me that you are now using a shotgun technique, posting
links to any articles that are vaguely helmet promotional. If you have >articles that specifically make some particular point we've been
discussing, give me a quotation as well as the link.
Good examples would be articles explaining why, if helmets are so
protective, bike concussions are so much higher than in pre-helmet days.
And article explaining why, with bicycling causing such a tiny
percentage of serious or fatal TBI, we should still nag bicyclists to
never ride without a marginally protective cap.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:51:47 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/27/2025 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:46:01 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/27/2025 2:58 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 2:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Frank has number of times, mentioned this
On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New- CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep- your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in
willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency
incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends
to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could
post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these
evil minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as
if he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so
he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as
I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying
to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his
nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you
pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing
each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only
way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to
"censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair
as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of
Rep Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made
2028 campaign ad. With any luck, she will make an ass
of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here. Show us who she is and how
she thinks.
I'm big on free speech. And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-
stands- by-green- cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn’t a pimp cane, I don’t
know what is.”
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling
Abbot "hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We
can speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she
knows it, but for someone who herself shouted at the
president during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_
level is beyond hypocritical.
Not really, you have (somewhat) consistently been a
refreshing voice of rationalism from a conservative view
point. (FWIW, I've never claimed to be a voice of
rationalism on (especially) political issues. I may be a
loud-mouthed asshole, at least I admit it.)
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what
he thinks. Meh. Some Republicans over reacted (including
Ms Boebert). Which only shows their pettiness.
And for balance "Ms Boebert running her mouth made clear who
she is and what she thinks. Meh. Some democrats over reacted
(including Mr Green) which only shows their pettiness."
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget
commensurate with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a
better place. (fat chance of that)
You have thank Ronald "Deficits Don't Matter" Reagan to
thank for that.
That "Just So Story" version survives as an urban myth but
the actual story is more complex. As with the disastrous
amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for tighter
immigration laws, only half the bargain happened. The other
half never did.
https://www.history.com/articles/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency
We agree though that the result was a typical fiasco of debt.
As I've bitched and moaned here before, no party and no
President (since Jackson anyway) looks good in this regard.
The DOGE effort is yet in progress, but people who follow
politics (me) are not at all hopeful for results.
What do you expect when they make a big fuss over third grade level
name calling and introduce bills and start legal proceedings they know
beforehand have no possibility to succeed.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That's mostly theater and image making fluff.
The real agendae are under the table, as Sen Menendez (11
years for bribery by Egypt). In a perfect world, Sen Roger
Marshall (R, KS) will be his cellmate for a long while after
his pathetic advocacy for Qatar today (yes that Qatar, the
people who fund jihadis to kill Jews and US servicemen).
Term limits....... we need them..... we're not going to get them.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Pro driving tip: never argue with a police
officer.
On 3/25/2025 11:48 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 7:52 AM, John B. wrote:
As I've said many times before, I haven't been the U.S. for many
years ...
Perhaps you should come visit to refresh your knowledge.
But do people in other parts of the world avoid playing baseball or in >>>> an English "colony", Cricket, because one must wear a helmet, or U.S.
football. or riding to the hounds or all the various activities that
require a helmet".
John, I live two blocks from a Village football field - the old high
school field - and an adjacent flat grassy field. Both are used by
young guys and kids for a variety of "pick up" sports, including touch
football.
Guys playing touch football do not wear helmets. There is no mandate,
and apparently the guys judge that the risk of serious head injury is
low. I played touch football on an intramural team in college, and
none of us wore helmets.
Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest fear
mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is huge, far
worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data showing that's
false.
There may not be any greater risk than any other activity, but that
doesn't mean that wearing a helmet won't protect you when your head hits
the asphalt.
Which is also true when running (as Mark does), when walking (I've had >friends seriously injured while walking on concrete sidewalks) and when
doing other things with non-zero risk of brain injury.
I'm a helmet wearer. I've always counseled people riding on public
roadways or riding for performance to wear helmets. For going on a
casual, low-risk ride on a smooth recreational rail trail, not much of
an issue and I've even gone out for such rides without one (as recently
as our trip to Aruba last year). But any time I'm going out on the road
or any ride at a 'fitness' level or higher, I always wear one.
Of course you do. And you wear special shorts, shoes, jerseys, gloves, >jackets and all the rest. I'm not trying to talk you out of any of that
kit.
But understand, until about 1980, "fitness" and competitive cyclists
wore all that stuff - but no helmets. It wasn't until the false
propaganda about unusual brain injury risk appeared that the foam hat
became part of the costume.
Did all those prior avid cyclists somehow not notice that their buddies
were getting brain injured? Nope, it was never a sizeable problem. Now
it's an "Omigosh!" serious risk.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:26:40 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:51:47 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/27/2025 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:46:01 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 3/27/2025 2:58 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 2:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:Frank has number of times, mentioned this
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New- CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep- your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these
evil minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so
he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying
to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his
nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you
pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing
each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only
way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to
"censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair
as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of
Rep Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made
2028 campaign ad.� With any luck, she will make an ass
of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here.� Show us who she is and how
she thinks.
I'm big on free speech.� And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-
stands- by-green- cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn�t a pimp cane, I don�t
know what is.�
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling
Abbot "hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We
can speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she
knows it, but for someone who herself shouted at the
president during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_
level is beyond hypocritical.
Not really, you have (somewhat) consistently been a
refreshing voice of rationalism from a conservative view
point. (FWIW, I've never claimed to be a voice of
rationalism on (especially) political issues. I may be a
loud-mouthed asshole, at least I admit it.)
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what
he thinks. Meh. Some Republicans over reacted (including
Ms Boebert). Which only shows their pettiness.
And for balance "Ms Boebert running her mouth made clear who
she is and what she thinks. Meh. Some democrats over reacted
(including Mr Green) which only shows their pettiness."
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget
commensurate with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a
better place. (fat chance of that)
You have thank Ronald "Deficits Don't Matter" Reagan to
thank for that.
That "Just So Story" version survives as an urban myth but
the actual story is more complex. As with the disastrous
amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for tighter
immigration laws, only half the bargain happened. The other
half never did.
https://www.history.com/articles/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency
We agree though that the result was a typical fiasco of debt.
As I've bitched and moaned here before, no party and no
President (since Jackson anyway) looks good in this regard.
The DOGE effort is yet in progress, but people who follow
politics (me) are not at all hopeful for results.
What do you expect when they make a big fuss over third grade level
name calling and introduce bills and start legal proceedings they know >>>> beforehand have no possibility to succeed.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That's mostly theater and image making fluff.
The real agendae are under the table, as Sen Menendez (11
years for bribery by Egypt). In a perfect world, Sen Roger
Marshall (R, KS) will be his cellmate for a long while after
his pathetic advocacy for Qatar today (yes that Qatar, the
people who fund jihadis to kill Jews and US servicemen).
Term limits....... we need them..... we're not going to get them.
Why ever not? After all there were no term limits at all prior to 1951
and now you have one office with limits. If you can pass one amendment
you can pass more.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:26:40 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:51:47 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/27/2025 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:46:01 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 3/27/2025 2:58 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 2:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.
On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:Frank has number of times, mentioned this
On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
Bicycling has never been a major source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of serious traumatic brain
injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bicycling's contribution to
TBI
counts is low enough to be off most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "causes" charts. Bicycling
causes
fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer than pedestrian
travel, and
far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> historic data over the
years shows
quite clearly that bicycle helmets are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not preventing either
fatalities
or concussions.
Impossible to document that.
Wrong, as usual.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-
Releases/2021/New- CDC- Report-
Finds-More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Related- Accidents- CPSC-
Says-it-Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety- statistics-may-
surprise-you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep- your-brain- safe-
while- biking
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Head- Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point of this message.
The point of this message is to point out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willful ignorance.
How one would go about proving that bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?
Statistical accident analysis, just like it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incidents.
But, as noted here often, any given individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.
I'll agree with that last statement, with some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without a helmet.".
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these
evil minded scoundrels
are doing.
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if he had something
important to say.
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so
he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying
to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his
nose if some people
choose to wear them.
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you
pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing
each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only
way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to
"censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair
as "hot wheels."
We pay those jackasses for that?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of
Rep Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made
2028 campaign ad. With any luck, she will make an ass
of herself more between now and then.
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
Go ahead, quote her here. Show us who she is and how
she thinks.
I'm big on free speech. And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-
stands- by-green- cane-comments/
"...if that gold-plated cane isn’t a pimp cane, I don’t
know what is.”
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling
Abbot "hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We
can speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she
knows it, but for someone who herself shouted at the
president during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_
level is beyond hypocritical.
Not really, you have (somewhat) consistently been a
refreshing voice of rationalism from a conservative view
point. (FWIW, I've never claimed to be a voice of
rationalism on (especially) political issues. I may be a
loud-mouthed asshole, at least I admit it.)
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what
he thinks. Meh. Some Republicans over reacted (including
Ms Boebert). Which only shows their pettiness.
And for balance "Ms Boebert running her mouth made clear who
she is and what she thinks. Meh. Some democrats over reacted
(including Mr Green) which only shows their pettiness."
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget
commensurate with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a
better place. (fat chance of that)
You have thank Ronald "Deficits Don't Matter" Reagan to
thank for that.
That "Just So Story" version survives as an urban myth but
the actual story is more complex. As with the disastrous
amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for tighter
immigration laws, only half the bargain happened. The other
half never did.
https://www.history.com/articles/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency
We agree though that the result was a typical fiasco of debt.
As I've bitched and moaned here before, no party and no
President (since Jackson anyway) looks good in this regard.
The DOGE effort is yet in progress, but people who follow
politics (me) are not at all hopeful for results.
What do you expect when they make a big fuss over third grade level
name calling and introduce bills and start legal proceedings they know >>>> beforehand have no possibility to succeed.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That's mostly theater and image making fluff.
The real agendae are under the table, as Sen Menendez (11
years for bribery by Egypt). In a perfect world, Sen Roger
Marshall (R, KS) will be his cellmate for a long while after
his pathetic advocacy for Qatar today (yes that Qatar, the
people who fund jihadis to kill Jews and US servicemen).
Term limits....... we need them..... we're not going to get them.
Why ever not? After all there were no term limits at all prior to 1951
and now you have one office with limits. If you can pass one amendment
you can pass more.
On 3/28/2025 4:18 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
According to an accademic textbook about neurology, published by de
Gruyter, the majority of accidental deaths are caused by a brain injury.
This is true for _all_ accidents, not just for cyclists, pedestrians or
people walking around at home.
According to that book, around 60% of all accidental deaths are due to
brain injuries. Looking specifically at deaths caused by traffic, in
Germany the figure is around 70% or about 7,000 people per year. Only a
tiny minority of these 70000 people are cyclists, most traffic deaths
are car drivers or pedestrians (run over by cars, I assume).
For reference:
de Gruyter Lehrbuch
W.Fr�scher
Neurologie
mit Repetitorium
1990
ISBN 3-11-010767-8
Kapitel 12, W. P�ll: Traumen
12.1 Traumen des Gehirns und seiner H�llen
12.1.1 Epidemiologie und allgemeine Angaben zur Pathogenese und
Einteilung der Sch�del-Hirn-Verletzungen
I mentioned that in 1995 already, rec.bicycles.soc,
<3rqeld$[email protected]>. So it isn't really news. Percentages may have
changed a bit, but not enough to invalidate the conclusion: People who
fear to die from a head injury after an accident should start wearing a
helmet while walking, even inhouse, especially when using stairs. Same
for driving, using public transport, even while just sitting on an
office chair and staring at a screen.
About two years ago there was a (rare) discussion in our bicycle club
about mandating helmets. I mentioned that it was far more common for
people to fall in their home and die of TBI than it was on bicycles. One
man surprised me by saying yes, that's how his first wife died.
Then maybe a year later I got a long distance phone call from the
brother of one of my best friends in college. My friend had just died by >falling down the stairs to his basement. That was almost certainly a TBI >fatality.
Then there are all the TBI fatalities inside cars. But I'll bet that not
one of the bicycle helmet advocates in this group bother to put on their >helmet when driving to or from a bike ride.
Fashion is weird and powerful.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:48:13 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:45:14 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:17:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:A hundred dollars for a shirt? I don't think so.
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra >>>>>>>>> protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You
obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking.
Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special
protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem
inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views? >>>>>>>>>
path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to
push through said bushes!
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with
the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It?s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one?s keys/gloves etc at
cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population
studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie >>>>>>>> Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on. >>>>>>>>
But UK isn?t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are
large, so I don?t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility
cyclists.
It?s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so >>>>>>> I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next >>>>>>> husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I >>>>>>> did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy >>>>>> a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-) >>>>>
For a shirt that lasts 25 years that's value for money.
I have ordinary t-shirts older than that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If not used much yes, I have clothes from last century and so on, but they >> where not a 2 pound/dollar cheap t shirt, which if one handles them often
feel lighter, and dont last.
And thats just general clothes let alone sports kit that will be washed
every time. Or used in abrasive useage be that wet gritty roads to full on >> bog crossing with the MTB which is hard on kit.
Roger Merriman
The black Under Armor Heat Gear long sleeve shirt I wore biking today
cost about $30.00. I'll bet it'll last as long as any of those hundred
dollar shirts.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2025 22:48:13 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:45:14 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:17:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You
obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking.
Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special
protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem
inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views? >>>>>>>>>>
protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to
push through said bushes!
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with
the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It?s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one?s keys/gloves etc at
cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population
studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie >>>>>>>>> Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on. >>>>>>>>>
But UK isn?t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are
large, so I don?t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility
cyclists.
It?s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so >>>>>>>> I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next >>>>>>>> husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I >>>>>>>> did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy >>>>>>> a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-)
A hundred dollars for a shirt? I don't think so.
For a shirt that lasts 25 years that's value for money.
I have ordinary t-shirts older than that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If not used much yes, I have clothes from last century and so on, but they >>> where not a 2 pound/dollar cheap t shirt, which if one handles them often >>> feel lighter, and don?t last.
And that?s just general clothes let alone sports kit that will be washed >>> every time. Or used in abrasive useage be that wet gritty roads to full on >>> bog crossing with the MTB which is hard on kit.
Roger Merriman
The black Under Armor Heat Gear long sleeve shirt I wore biking today
cost about $30.00. I'll bet it'll last as long as any of those hundred
dollar shirts.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Not sure where the 100 dollar shirt came from! The club kit etc might be >close to that, as it�s a short production run and so on, but my other
cycling tops closer to the 30 dollars, particularly if one buys at end of >seasons and so on, though as it lasts haven�t for a while, they can and do >occasionally get torn etc.
Roger Merriman
On 3/27/2025 2:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:28:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Before you get up to full speed you might want yo to read
On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less than >>>>>>> people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test.
"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature
claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets _prevent_ >>>> serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not prevent it.
Seems to me you're focusing on the difference between "_always_
prevents" (which was never stated by anyone) and "can reduce severity."
The latter is more honest, but is NOT how helmets are promoted. Try
googling "Do bike helmets prevent serious head trauma?" After reading
AI's "Yes" try follow the resulting links.
And logically, if a helmet did prevent serious head trauma in one out of >>> ten cases, that would justify a "Yes" answer. In those cases a helmet
would have done what was asked.
Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about >>>>>>> that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be >>>>>>> over represented in concussion counts.
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph
impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a >>>>>>> problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain >>>>>>> caused far more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet
protrudes at least an inch from the head, providing a longer lever >>>>>>> arm for glancing blows, potentially worsening rotational
acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair and very loose >>>>>>> scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The >>>>>>> helmet makes those ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data to
support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can cause >>>> more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the exact opposite.
Well, I suppose the "thus" is not totally proven. I don't see how you
can claim they do not provide a longer lever arm for glancing blows. A
helmet absolutely is larger than the head. The radius upon which a
glancing force acts on a helmet is certainly larger than the radius on a >>> bare head. And BTW, that means that a certain number of misses must be
converted to hits. I hope that's obvious to you.
In any case, _something_ seems to be causing a correlation between
rising helmet use and rising cyclist concussions. If it's not the
factors I speculated on, I'd be interested in hearing your theories.
See
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/i-team-concussions-on-the-rise-among-cyclists/
https://www.slatervecchio.com/blog/bike-helmets-dont-protect-against-concussions/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-helmets-should-address-concussion-risk-scientists-say-1.1367454
https://www.cdc.gov/heads-up/safety/index.html
Which says,in part, "There is no concussion-proof helmet"
Referring, apparently to
Baseball Helmet -
Batters Helmet
Catchers Helmet
Hockey Helmet
Hockey Goalie Helmet
Bike Helmet
Equestrian Helmet
Football Helmet
Lacrosse Helmet
Skateboard Helmet
Ski Helmet
Snowboard Helmet
Right. Obviously, any helmet is designed to (hopefully) protect
against impacts of certain type, at a certain intensity. And
obviously, it's possible for impacts to be more severe.
Bike helmets come with internal stickers saying something like "No
helmet can protect against all impacts." But the issue I'm raising is
that helmets are portrayed as greatly reducing brain injury, which
should include concussion, the most common brain injury. But national
records of bicyclist concussions show they have risen dramatically,
not fallen, as bike helmets have become ever more common.
Flu vaccinations get developed based on predictions of upcoming virus characteristics. And they are evaluated by after-the-fact reports on effectiveness, by counts of flu cases and severity in the general
population: How much did this year's vaccine reduce flu infections?
Sometimes the vaccine works really well, sometimes less well.
If that same sort of general population evaluation was applied to bike helmets, the conclusion would be "Yeah, our initial tests looked good,
but they failed in the general population."
On 28 Mar 2025 18:46:20 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2025 22:48:13 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:45:14 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:17:43 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 27.03.2025 um 13:43 schrieb John B.:
On 27 Mar 2025 11:49:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I find them useful off road as bush protection if like myself one rides the
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You
obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now
seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking.
Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special
protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem
inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views? >>>>>>>>>>>
protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need. >>>>>>>>>>>
path less traveled aka overgrown! So I can essentially use my the helmet to
push through said bushes!
On road which for me largely is commuting, It provides eye protection with
the visor from rain/hail and so on.
It?s also quite handy as sort of man bag to put one?s keys/gloves etc at
cafe stop/shopping etc.
I have no expectations of protection from motor traffic nor does population
studies seem to suggest that, bike infrastructure seems to do that ie
Amsterdam and similar cyclists have much lower rates and so on. >>>>>>>>>>
But UK isn?t likely to make this a legislation the hurdles to do so are
large, so I don?t feel forced or otherwise to use one, after all see plenty
of non helmeted cyclists about be they folks on hire bikes or some utility
cyclists.
It?s such a non issue at least here.
I think my reason for wearing a helmet was best :-)
My wife mentioned one day, "I'd feel better if you wore a helmet", so >>>>>>>>> I went right out and bought one. Which gave me a big edge in the next
husband-wife argument.... "Well! When you wanted me to wear a helmet I
did....." (:-])
My answer was "High visibility is even more important. What about I buy
a bright yellow Gore cycling top?", killing two birds with one stone ;-)
A hundred dollars for a shirt? I don't think so.
For a shirt that lasts 25 years that's value for money.
I have ordinary t-shirts older than that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If not used much yes, I have clothes from last century and so on, but they >>>> where not a 2 pound/dollar cheap t shirt, which if one handles them often >>>> feel lighter, and don?t last.
And that?s just general clothes let alone sports kit that will be washed >>>> every time. Or used in abrasive useage be that wet gritty roads to full on >>>> bog crossing with the MTB which is hard on kit.
Roger Merriman
The black Under Armor Heat Gear long sleeve shirt I wore biking today
cost about $30.00. I'll bet it'll last as long as any of those hundred
dollar shirts.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Not sure where the 100 dollar shirt came from! The club kit etc might be
close to that, as its a short production run and so on, but my other
cycling tops closer to the 30 dollars, particularly if one buys at end of
seasons and so on, though as it lasts havent for a while, they can and do >> occasionally get torn etc.
Roger Merriman
I saw shirts on their website for $200+ dollars. The cheapest one I
saw was short sleeve for $65.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 3/28/2025 4:43 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
Flu vaccinations get developed based on predictions of upcoming virus
characteristics. And they are evaluated by after-the-fact reports on
effectiveness, by counts of flu cases and severity in the general
population: How much did this year's vaccine reduce flu infections?
Sometimes the vaccine works really well, sometimes less well.
If that same sort of general population evaluation was applied to bike
helmets, the conclusion would be "Yeah, our initial tests looked good,
but they failed in the general population."
I doubt you have looked into flu shots with the same energy you have
bike helmets. Flu shots are a moneymaker, and are promoted every year
regardless of how well they have done. This is not to say anything
positive or negative about their efficacy, just that it's not relevant
to the decision on whether to promote them. Same as bike helmets
I see major differences. Flu shots are revised year by year based on the
best science available, which typically involves "what strain of flu
just dominated in the southern hemisphere?" Yes, sometimes they miss,
but the results are typically good, with 50% fewer flu cases being
pretty typical. And they try for improvements the next year.
And flu causes tens of thousands of U.S. fatalities in most years.
Bike helmet design and certification is calcified (by law!) in 1970s >technology. Unlike flu vaccines, there is no national population data >indicating any significant reduction in deaths. And bicycling TBI deaths
are very rare anyway, typically around only 500 per year out of a
national total of over 50,000 TBI deaths.
You're an odd case. Most people who begin to doubt the party line on
one issue begin to see parallels with other issues, and their doubts
multiply. Bike helmets don't work? Maybe flu vaccines don't either.
Maybe statins are actually bad for you. Maybe, as Mr. Shadow tells us,
US standards for blood pressure are counter-productive. Maybe even
those studies on second hand smoke were nonsense. Who knows where it
will stop? Maybe eating saturated animal fat is actually *good* for us.
IIRC, in this discussion group and in this society, each of us gets to
choose the issues that are important to us.
Of course, it's wise not to mention too many heterdox opinions in any
one setting, lest decent people decide you're entirely crazy. But you
seem quite uncalculating -- It's just bike helmets that are an
unaccountable failure in public health policy, on everything else we
should obey authority.
:-) On helmets, I'm among the last people to whom you should apply >"uncalculating." Review my many posts citing data and data processing.
And you have roughly zero idea about my views on "everything else,"
including statins, blood pressure, second hand smoke, saturated fat,
etc. Check your assumptions at the door, please.
On 3/27/2025 3:49 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 1:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/27/2025 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. >>>>>>> You obviously don't believe that,
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you
now seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than
walking. Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value
from special protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them.
Those two points seem inconsistent.
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to
extra protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
That explains your personal choice, based on your "view" and your
"feel." But that doesn't explain your statement "I've always
counseled people riding on public roadways or riding for performance
to wear helmets." In fact, "Don't wear them if you don't feel that
need" sounds quite opposite.
It goes like this:
"I almost always wear a helmet. If you're riding in traffic or for
performance I would advise you to also, but it's your choice".
No contradiction there at all.
The "I would advise you..." is a statement you don't need to make.
You're being a shill for styrofoam. And if you make such a statement for bicycling, but not for other transportation choices like walking or
motoring, you're implying (and so probably believing) that bicycling is inherently much more dangerous.
Yet "most studies have shown that pedestrians are exposed to a higher
risk of death than other road users" (from https://www.nature.com/ articles/s41598-023-47476-z). And you apparently don't give your spiel
to the pedestrians.
I often discuss actual data when I see that people's "feelings" are
belied by good data. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to wear
what you like. But it is certainly true that some personal ideas and
"feelings" are objectively incorrect.
You've interpreted data to support your position, I've interpreted
data to support mine. The difference is that I'm right :)
:-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed the relative
frequency of TBI shown in the big pie chart at https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Or maybe you haven't seen data like in https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-injury-facts
which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people die" [of TBI] . But
fewer than 500 are bicyclists.
And "Causes of Traumatic Brain Injury : Motor Vehicle Crashes account for 50% of all TBIs. This includes autos, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles,
and pedestrians hit by vehicles.
The leading causes of TBI vary by age: falls are the leading cause
of TBI among persons aged 65 years and older; transportation is the
leading cause of TBI among persons under the age of 65 years.
Estimates suggest that sports related brain injury accounts for
close to 300,000 injuries each year, with winter sports such as skiing
and ice-skating accounting for close to 20,000 brain injuries. (7) "
Again, bicycling is barely mentioned, and is justifiably given no more prominence than autos, inside which far more incidents of TBI occur.
I don't really fault you for having believed that bicycling is an
unusual and horrible risk for TBI. After all, the propaganda machine
has been in high gear for decades. But it's now time for you to educate yourself and put things in the proper perspective.
On 3/27/2025 7:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
You've interpreted data to support your position, I've interpreted
data to support mine. The difference is that I'm right :)
:-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed the relative
frequency of TBI shown in the big pie chart at
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Or maybe you haven't seen data like in
https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-injury-facts
which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people die" [of TBI] .
But fewer than 500 are bicyclists.
I did address it, I stated that the numbers were relevant to my point.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy >>>>> and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu >>>> vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the
efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu >>>>> vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction >>> in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in traffic
between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero although "what
counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be appropriate questions here.
On 3/27/2025 4:14 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 1:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less >>>>>>>>> than people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test. >>>>>>>>"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature >>>>>>>> claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets
_prevent_ serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not
prevent it.
Seems to me you're focusing on the difference between "_always_
prevents" (which was never stated by anyone) and "can reduce
severity."
Yes, I am.
The latter is more honest, but is NOT how helmets are promoted.
So you're saying helmets are promoted as preventing serious head
trauma, yet your only "evidence" is:
Try googling "Do bike helmets prevent serious head trauma?" After
reading AI's "Yes" try follow the resulting links.
And logically, if a helmet did prevent serious head trauma in one
out of ten cases, that would justify a "Yes" answer. In those cases
a helmet would have done what was asked.
Yet there is no published literature from any manufacturer or
advocacy group which supports your claim 'thats how helmets are
promoted'. an AI answer does not qualify as marketing literature.
I don't have a stock of marketing literature, but I suppose we can
both search online. There's this: https://sonomasaferoutes.org/sites/
default/ files/lesson_7.pdf that states "Why Are Helmets Important?
(10 minutes)
• Ask students to articulate why wearing helmets is important
(because they protect against brain injury, disability, and death).
Share that helmet use has been estimated to reduce brain injury risk
by 85 percent."
OK, you came up with one source - I'll give you that.
It used to be very common. It's less common now, probably because of this:
"Government agencies drop 85% helmet benefit claim
"US federal agencies The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have decided that they
can no longer justify citing the claim that bicycle helmets reduce the
risk of head injury by 85%. No subsequent research has ever found a
benefit anywhere near as great.
"The agencies had been challenged under the Data Quality Act to show why
they still continued to cite the earlier estimate, which is often seized
upon to exaggerate the potential benefits of helmets and to support
helmet laws" That's from https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=103
We can have a semantic discussion over "protect against" vs
"prevents". My view is "prevents" is absolute, "Protects against" is
not and is more in line with "_can_ reduce severity". Your
interpretation will likely vary.
Humpty Dumpty: "A word means exactly what I want it to mean..."
WRT the 85%, again, this is the first I've heard of anyone promoting
that. They shouldn't be doing it.
Agreed, and they never should have done it. It was on a par with "A
daily tablespoon of our special vinegar can help you lose up to 85
pounds in a year!!"
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established >>>>>>>>> (essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph >>>>>>>>> impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less >>>>>>>>> of a problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head >>>>>>>>> and brain caused far more brain injury than smacking them. But >>>>>>>>> a helmet protrudes at least an inch from the head, providing a >>>>>>>>> longer lever arm for glancing blows, potentially worsening
rotational acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair >>>>>>>>> and very loose scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to reduce >>>>>>>>> that hazard. The helmet makes those ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data
to support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus
can cause more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the
exact opposite.
Well, I suppose the "thus" is not totally proven. I don't see how
you can claim they do not provide a longer lever arm for glancing
blows.
I didn't. I wrote that " you have no data to support the that
helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can cause more injury"
claim. Every study I've link states the exact opposite."
I don't see you've linked any studies that specifically address the
lever arm!
And you wont. Who would volunteer as a test subject?
And I'll note a parallel between your previous objection on a related
issue, and my statement:
You put high value on the word "can" by saying "... They _can_ reduce
severity..." to excuse the countless times they do not. Yet you're
ignoring my statement where I'll emphasize: "... a longer lever arm
and thus CAN cause more injury."
Nope, that's a false equivalence. "can reduce severity" is supported
by data, 'longer lever arm" is not.
"Longer lever arm" is supported by things like a ruler! It's a
measurement of distance. And while I'm speculating a bit on details of
the mechanism (using rather straightforward physics), an increase in concussions as bike helmet use increased _is_ supported by data.
More people wearing cycling helmets means less fatal head trauma.
The result is more _non_ fatal head trauma.
Look at the numbers, please. They're comparing 1997 to 2011 (in the
same old universe!). Wiki says 1997 had 814 bike fatalities. 2011
had 682 (one of the lowest counts ever). That difference of 132
can't possibly be enough to explain this: “Between 1997 and 2011 the
number of bike- related concussions suffered annually by American
riders increased by 67%, from 9,327 to 15,546”
You've got at least 6000 concussions you haven't explained.
Sure I have. They were wearing helmets. If they weren't there be be a
lot more deaths from head trauma.
You can't pretend that 6000 potential deaths were converted to
concussions unless you had more than 6000 deaths to begin with. During
the time period cited (and since) there have never been close to 6000
annual cyclist deaths. Annually, they have sometimes risen, sometimes
fallen, despite the ever increasing popularity of bike helmets.
But concussions have consistently risen. Your excuse for that is not at
all plausible.
On 3/27/2025 4:14 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 1:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/27/2025 8:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less >>>>>>>>> than people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test. >>>>>>>>"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature >>>>>>>> claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
WHAT???
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets
_prevent_ serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not
prevent it.
Seems to me you're focusing on the difference between "_always_
prevents" (which was never stated by anyone) and "can reduce
severity."
Yes, I am.
The latter is more honest, but is NOT how helmets are promoted.
So you're saying helmets are promoted as preventing serious head
trauma, yet your only "evidence" is:
Try googling "Do bike helmets prevent serious head trauma?" After
reading AI's "Yes" try follow the resulting links.
And logically, if a helmet did prevent serious head trauma in one
out of ten cases, that would justify a "Yes" answer. In those cases
a helmet would have done what was asked.
Yet there is no published literature from any manufacturer or
advocacy group which supports your claim 'thats how helmets are
promoted'. an AI answer does not qualify as marketing literature.
I don't have a stock of marketing literature, but I suppose we can
both search online. There's this: https://sonomasaferoutes.org/sites/
default/ files/lesson_7.pdf that states "Why Are Helmets Important?
(10 minutes)
• Ask students to articulate why wearing helmets is important
(because they protect against brain injury, disability, and death).
Share that helmet use has been estimated to reduce brain injury risk
by 85 percent."
OK, you came up with one source - I'll give you that.
It used to be very common. It's less common now, probably because of this:
"Government agencies drop 85% helmet benefit claim
"US federal agencies The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have decided that they
can no longer justify citing the claim that bicycle helmets reduce the
risk of head injury by 85%. No subsequent research has ever found a
benefit anywhere near as great.
"The agencies had been challenged under the Data Quality Act to show why
they still continued to cite the earlier estimate, which is often seized
upon to exaggerate the potential benefits of helmets and to support
helmet laws" That's from https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=103
We can have a semantic discussion over "protect against" vs
"prevents". My view is "prevents" is absolute, "Protects against" is
not and is more in line with "_can_ reduce severity". Your
interpretation will likely vary.
Humpty Dumpty: "A word means exactly what I want it to mean..."
WRT the 85%, again, this is the first I've heard of anyone promoting
that. They shouldn't be doing it.
Agreed, and they never should have done it. It was on a par with "A
daily tablespoon of our special vinegar can help you lose up to 85
pounds in a year!!"
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established >>>>>>>>> (essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph >>>>>>>>> impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less >>>>>>>>> of a problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head >>>>>>>>> and brain caused far more brain injury than smacking them. But >>>>>>>>> a helmet protrudes at least an inch from the head, providing a >>>>>>>>> longer lever arm for glancing blows, potentially worsening
rotational acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair >>>>>>>>> and very loose scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to reduce >>>>>>>>> that hazard. The helmet makes those ineffective.)
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
What part did you not understand?
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data
to support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus
can cause more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the
exact opposite.
Well, I suppose the "thus" is not totally proven. I don't see how
you can claim they do not provide a longer lever arm for glancing
blows.
I didn't. I wrote that " you have no data to support the that
helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can cause more injury"
claim. Every study I've link states the exact opposite."
I don't see you've linked any studies that specifically address the
lever arm!
And you wont. Who would volunteer as a test subject?
And I'll note a parallel between your previous objection on a related
issue, and my statement:
You put high value on the word "can" by saying "... They _can_ reduce
severity..." to excuse the countless times they do not. Yet you're
ignoring my statement where I'll emphasize: "... a longer lever arm
and thus CAN cause more injury."
Nope, that's a false equivalence. "can reduce severity" is supported
by data, 'longer lever arm" is not.
"Longer lever arm" is supported by things like a ruler! It's a
measurement of distance.
And while I'm speculating a bit on details of
the mechanism (using rather straightforward physics), an increase in concussions as bike helmet use increased _is_ supported by data.
More people wearing cycling helmets means less fatal head trauma.
The result is more _non_ fatal head trauma.
Look at the numbers, please. They're comparing 1997 to 2011 (in the
same old universe!). Wiki says 1997 had 814 bike fatalities. 2011
had 682 (one of the lowest counts ever). That difference of 132
can't possibly be enough to explain this: “Between 1997 and 2011 the
number of bike- related concussions suffered annually by American
riders increased by 67%, from 9,327 to 15,546”
You've got at least 6000 concussions you haven't explained.
Sure I have. They were wearing helmets. If they weren't there be be a
lot more deaths from head trauma.
You can't pretend that 6000 potential deaths were converted to
concussions unless you had more than 6000 deaths to begin with.
During
the time period cited (and since) there have never been close to 6000
annual cyclist deaths. Annually, they have sometimes risen, sometimes
fallen, despite the ever increasing popularity of bike helmets.
But concussions have consistently risen. Your excuse for that is not at
all plausible.
On every topic I can remember, save bike helmets and infrastructure,
Mr. Krygowski tells us to believe the annointed experts. On bike
helmets, the experts are shills, charlatans, and fashion victims.
Perhaps he is right, and bike helmets really are a unique blind spot in
our expertariat.
On 3/27/2025 8:26 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/26/2025 4:19 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 12:51 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Regarding relevance: What are you trying to achieve?
A factual discussion on helmet efficacy.
OK, I'd say we're doing that.
No, you're hung up on marketing.
Well, "hung up" on the weird promotion of bike helmets as hugely
important, and the related false claim that bicycling is so dangerous
that foam protective hats are really necessary.
OK, I'm wondering why you promote bike helmets.
Are you saying "Forget the monetary cost. Brain injuries are so
terrible we need to prevent them any way possible."?
nope
Then again, I'm wondering why you promote bike helmets.
Are you focused ONLY on calling attention to bicycling's dangers?
nope
So I wonder why you advocate helmets only for bike riding, not for
other more important causes of TBI injuries and fatalities.
And I'm still wondering.
I promote helmets because they work.
But your promotion efforts seem to apply only to bicycling. I very
much doubt that you really feel foam helmets "work" _only_ in
bicyclists.
This is true,
I think at the root of your helmet enthusiasm is a belief that
bicycling really is a very important source of serious and/or fatal TBI.
Nope.
So explain. You now seem to say they would work for other causes of TBI.
And you say bicycling is not a very important or serious risk of TBI.
But you still tell people just riding on roads that they should wear
helmets. Apparently you don't do the same for people walking near roads, despite evidence of greater risk. Nor for people riding in cars, who
dominate the TBI statistics for transportation.
And I've stated repeatedly that there are times that I _don't_ wear a
helmet. It's all about the risk mitigation. A casual ride on a rail
trial isn't likely going to end up with me hitting the pavement, a
tree, a truck....etc.
"I've always counseled people riding on public roadways ... to wear
helmets." All public roadways?
You've linked old articles. I've already linked new ones that show the
data. Here they are again since it seems you;ve chose to ignore them
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
?? That's 1999! And I can give lots of detail on that Cochrane study,
the one in which Thompson and Rivara used inclusion criteria that
allowed primarily their own studies, and rejected several pertinent
studies that reached different conclusions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
There seemed to be no data addressing the severely increased national
count of bicyclist concussions.
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-
More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-
Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
That had no information on helmet efficacy. It did note a significant increase in cyclist deaths, but it certainly did not point to a
corresponding decrease in helmet use, which would have been necessary to
hint at your point. The "helmets are important" bit is just an
uncorroborated opinion in that piece.
It's clear to me that you are now using a shotgun technique, posting
links to any articles that are vaguely helmet promotional. If you have articles that specifically make some particular point we've been
discussing, give me a quotation as well as the link.
Good examples would be articles explaining why, if helmets are so
protective, bike concussions are so much higher than in pre-helmet days.
And article explaining why, with bicycling causing such a tinyPerhaps I'll link that along with an article explaining why, with AR-15s
percentage of serious or fatal TBI, we should still nag bicyclists to
never ride without a marginally protective cap.
My crippling injury occurred when I fell 2' at only 5 mph.
On Wed Mar 26 20:40:23 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed Mar 26 18:51:39 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:It?s called auto pause and within each activity profile, I leave it off as >> don?t want it paused during slow speed tricky MTB stuff as Strava and
cyclintom <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>>>>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>>>>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>>>>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically >>>>>>>> the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>>>>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders >>>>>>>> naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>>>>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my >>>>>>> claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a >>>>>> couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes, >>>>>> etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've >>>>>> ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed. You are supposed to be an
engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 >>>>> minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from >>>>> total time from turning the meter on? All I can say is that you're
some kind of engineer.
As do Garmin connect and Strava ie doesn?t count the stationary time, aka >>>> waiting at traffic lights or time at the cafe or so on.
I have an 830 and a 1030 and neither one of those has an autostop
feature. And if you push "stop" on the clock, when you restart, they
restart the mileage from zero. Now it has saved the previous ride and you >>> can downlooad the same total mileage. But if you leave it, it measures
the time from start to finish regardless of speed.
indeed Garmin connect will make average speed calculations ie remove the
cafe stops and so on.
Unless your riding has no cafe stops? Or no waiting for mates to ride
together or no traffic lights or stops in general, it?s a very poor way of >> displaying average speed, for example I often do a gravel ride to the pub
on a Wednesday, and spend a hour or more with mates there.
If you have a the Garmin set to no auto pause or don?t use Garmin Connect
or Strava to process the rides and calculate average speed etc, all your
doing is measuring cafe stops and other non performance metrics which is
isn?t remotely relevant!
Your averages on Garmin connect will be much more accurate as they don?t
measure faff and cafe time, ie how fast or not your riding.
Of course I agree with you but that doesn't make Garmin measure it any differently.
On Wed Mar 26 17:11:00 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Mar 26 18:51:39 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:lol...wow...._ALL_ Garmin cycling computers have an autopause function,
cyclintom <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my >>>>>>>> typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up >>>>>>>> with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at >>>>>>>> similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically >>>>>>>> the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the >>>>>>>> group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders >>>>>>>> naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people >>>>>>>> with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my >>>>>>> claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a >>>>>> couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes, >>>>>> etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've >>>>>> ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife,
grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed. You are supposed to be an
engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45 >>>>> minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from >>>>> total time from turning the meter on? All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
As do Garmin connect and Strava ie doesn?t count the stationary time, aka >>>> waiting at traffic lights or time at the cafe or so on.
I have an 830 and a 1030 and neither one of those has an autostop feature. >>
They've had that feature since Garmin first released cycling computers
in 2006.
830 user manual
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/edge830/EN-US/Edge_830_OM_EN-US.pdf >>
Page 54
Using Auto Pause
You can use the Auto Pause feature to pause the timer automatically when
you stop moving or when your speed drops below a specified value. This
feature is helpful if your ride includes stop lights or other places
where you need to slow down or stop.
NOTE: History is not recorded while the timer is stopped or paused.
1 Select > Activity Profiles.
2 Select a profile.
3 Select Auto Features > Auto Pause.
4 Select an option:
? Select When Stopped to pause the timer automatically when you stop moving. >> ? Select Custom Speed to pause the timer automatically when your speed
drops below a specified value.
5 If necessary, customize optional time data fields (Adding a Data
Screen, page 51).
1030 user manual
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/edge1030/EN-US/Edge_1030_OM_EN-US.pdf
Page 53
Using Auto Pause
You can use the Auto Pause feature to pause the timer automatically when
you stop moving or when your speed drops below a specified value. This
feature is helpful if your ride includes stop lights or other places
where you need to slow down or stop.
NOTE: History is not recorded while the timer is stopped or paused.
1 Select > Activity Profiles.
2 Select a profile.
3 Select Auto Features > Auto Pause.
4 Select an option:
? Select When Stopped to pause the timer automatically when you stop moving. >> ? Select Custom Speed to pause the timer automatically when your speed
drops below a specified value.
5 If necessary, customize optional time data fields (Adding a Data
Screen, page 50).
And if you push "stop" on the clock, when you restart, they restart the
mileage from zero. Now it has saved the previous ride and you can
downlooad the same total mileage. But if you leave it, it measures the
time from start to finish regardless of speed.
Why do you talk about an auto-pause function but you can't point it out?
I can find where you can manually pause a ride and then pick it up by turning it back on with Express, but not auto-poause.
On Tue Mar 25 16:36:45 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:05 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 14:24:43 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:41:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:12:26 -0300, Shadow <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
Not a month.
Obviously. I was joking.
[]'s
It's over a 9 year period:
"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009-2018"
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm>
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7019a1-H.pdf>
"This analysis included data on bicycling-related TBIs that occurred >>>>> among adults aged (greater than or equal) 18 years and children and
adolescents (children) aged (less than or equal) 17 years during
2009-2018."
See Table 1 in the PDF for better (and less confusing) numbers.
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
<https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data>
That was obvious except it gave Liebermann a chance to exercise his expertise at using Googol. Of course, I get "no such page".
That's because you're an idiot
since he insists on loading his references up with viruses. BitDefender will not let those viruses through.
None of those websites have viruses. If they did, my corporate firwewall
would block them. They aren't even tagged as 'suspicions'.
So your corporate firewall let pass your claim to have done two, 200 mile rides.
On Thu Mar 27 19:28:12 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
So explain. You now seem to say they would work for other causes
of TBI. And you say bicycling is not a very important or serious
risk of TBI. But you still tell people just riding on roads that
they should wear helmets. Apparently you don't do the same for
people walking near roads, despite evidence of greater risk. Nor
for people riding in cars, who dominate the TBI statistics for
transportation.
Frank, why are you so fixed in convincing people that they shouldn't
wear helmets? Exactly what business of yours what they do?
On Tue Mar 25 16:54:45 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:Trek introduced me to the Wavecell in 2020. How does that fit your invention of time tables?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:50:06 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 21:35:40 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:04:34 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
I haven't seen Keith since before I was injured so he wasn't marketing them under his name at that time.
You had a concussion in 2010.
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6912346811772932096/>
"I got a severe concussion in 2010 that led to a type of seizures that
I didn't remember afterwards. This wasn't discovered and treated
properly until 2012 after 4 car wrecks luckily without any injuries"
Wavecel was founded in 2016. There is no way anyone associated with
Wavecel could or would talk to you about their product in 2010 because
it didn't exist in 2010. If the inventor(s) did a public disclosure
more than 12 months prior to when the patent was issued (2016), they
would risk having the invention considered as prior art.
Liebermann, we already know that you're missing a few rocks out of a full load. Is there some reason you cannot understand that I am recommending the Wavecel BECAUSE the old fashion foam helmet I was wearing didn't prevent traumatic brain injuries?
I am only interested in your claim to have "seen Keith since before I
was injured" which would be 2010, which presumably was when Keith
Bontrager told you all about Wavecel.
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6912346811772932096/> >> "I got a severe concussion in 2010 that led to a type of seizures that
I didn't remember afterwards. This wasn't discovered and treated
properly until 2012 after 4 car wrecks luckily without any injuries."
As far as the general public was concerned, there was no Wavecel
product prior to when it was founded and the patents were issued in
2016. The Wavecel founders would never risk having their patent
invalidated because of a "prior art" claim. Therefore, neither Keith
or the founders discussed the technology with you prior to 2016.
Whatever happened in 2020 is irrelevant.
Quote where I said that Bontrager told me anything about Wavecel? I heard about Wavecel from Pslo Slto Trek which is no longer in business thanks yo you best friend Biden, you both share growing sanity problems. Is there ANYTHING you don't consideryourself an expert at because you can find some sort of reference on Google? When you know nothing about nothing go right ahead and tell us about it. It is quite entertaining.
On 4/2/2025 10:36 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.04.2025 um 16:32 schrieb cyclintom:
On Thu Mar 27 19:28:12 2025 Frank Krygowski� wrote:
So explain. You now seem to say they would work for other causes
of TBI. And you say bicycling is not a very important or serious
risk of TBI. But you still tell people just riding on roads that
they should wear helmets. Apparently you don't do the same for
people walking near roads, despite evidence of greater risk. Nor
for people riding in cars, who dominate the TBI statistics for
transportation.
Frank, why are you so fixed in convincing people that they shouldn't
wear helmets? Exactly what business of yours what they do?
Frank any myself mostly wish to ensure that people aren't pressurized to
wear helmets.
Making bicycling look like a dangerous activity is likely to reduce the
attraction of cycling as a mode of transport.
Right, that's my main motivation, although there are other details. I've
long been disturbed by the false propaganda portraying ordinary
bicycling as some high risk activity. I'm also astonished that so very
many avid cyclists are so committed to furthering that false propaganda.
As I've said, I don't see that schizoid behavior from avid runners,
drivers, swimmers, etc. It's just weird.
Some details: Even if cycling were more dangerous than, say, walking in
a city, I don't think do-gooders should be nagging cyclists to attempt
to protect themselves with foam hats. People would rightfully be
offended if they got nagged every time they consumed a hot dog or
something sweet and carbonated. We don't see government funds telling
people not to try rock climbing, skateboard tricks, flying in light
aircraft or even skydiving, all of which are probably far more risky
than simply bicycling bareheaded.
So why do we accept government or Usenet posters telling us to never
ride without a helmet,
or never let our kids ride without helmets?
People should have the personal freedom to choose their own risks, and
to allow reasonable risks for their kids. (Safe Kids Inc. used to urge >parents to forbid letting their kids climb trees!)
On 4/1/2025 3:14 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 7:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed the relative
frequency of TBI shown in the big pie chart at
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Or maybe you haven't seen data like in
https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-injury-facts
which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people die" [of TBI] .
But fewer than 500 are bicyclists.
I did address it, I stated that the numbers were relevant to my point.
And "Causes of Traumatic Brain Injury : Motor Vehicle Crashes
account for 50% of all TBIs. This includes autos, trucks,
motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians hit by vehicles.
The leading causes of TBI vary by age: falls are the leading
cause of TBI among persons aged 65 years and older; transportation is
the leading cause of TBI among persons under the age of 65 years.
Estimates suggest that sports related brain injury accounts for >>> close to 300,000 injuries each year, with winter sports such as
skiing and ice-skating accounting for close to 20,000 brain injuries.
(7) "
Again, bicycling is barely mentioned, and is justifiably given no
more prominence than autos, inside which far more incidents of TBI
occur.
I don't really fault you for having believed that bicycling is an
unusual and horrible risk for TBI. After all, the propaganda machine
has been in high gear for decades. But it's now time for you to
educate yourself and put things in the proper perspective.
But I _do_ fault you for repeatedly mischaracterizing my position.
At no time did I state our otherwise imply that "bicycling is an
unusual and horrible risk for TBI. I stated this unequivocally
several times already.
But now it's time for you to stop building strawmen and try arguing
objectively rather than emotionally.
Zen, you have not precisely said "Bicycling is such an unusual risk for
TBI that you should always wear a helmet when you ride."
But you _did_ confess that you regularly tell people that if they are
going to ride on roads - normal roads! - they should always wear a
helmet.
As far as we know, you have not said the same to pedestrians or
motorists, to skateboarders or scooter riders or joggers. That alone is strong indication that you're treating bicycling as unusual.
I don't see how you can pretend otherwise.
On 4/2/2025 12:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/1/2025 3:14 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 7:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed the relative
frequency of TBI shown in the big pie chart at
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Or maybe you haven't seen data like in
https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-injury-facts
which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people die" [of TBI] .
But fewer than 500 are bicyclists.
I did address it, I stated that the numbers were relevant to my point.
And "Causes of Traumatic Brain Injury :��� Motor Vehicle Crashes
account for 50% of all TBIs. This includes autos, trucks,
motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians hit by vehicles.
���� The leading causes of TBI vary by age: falls are the leading
cause of TBI among persons aged 65 years and older; transportation is
the leading cause of TBI among persons under the age of 65 years.
���� Estimates suggest that sports related brain injury accounts for
close to 300,000 injuries each year, with winter sports such as
skiing and ice-skating accounting for close to 20,000 brain injuries.
(7) "
Again, bicycling is barely mentioned, and is justifiably given no
more prominence than autos, inside which far more incidents of TBI
occur.
I don't really fault you for having believed that bicycling is an
unusual and� horrible risk for TBI. After all, the propaganda machine
has been in high gear for decades. But it's now time for you to
educate yourself and put things in the proper perspective.
But I _do_ fault you for repeatedly mischaracterizing my position.
At no time did I state our otherwise imply that "bicycling is an
��unusual and� horrible risk for TBI. I stated this unequivocally
several times already.
But now it's time for you to stop building strawmen and try arguing
objectively rather than emotionally.
Zen, you have not precisely said "Bicycling is such an unusual risk for
TBI that you should always wear a helmet when you ride."
But you _did_ confess that you regularly tell people that if they are
going to ride on roads - normal roads! - they should always wear a
helmet.
Why do you always seem surprised about normal roads?
As far as we know, you have not said the same to pedestrians or
motorists, to skateboarders or scooter riders or joggers. That alone is
strong indication that you're treating bicycling as unusual.
I tell my grandchildren they can't roller skate, skateboard, or ride
their scooters without a helmet while under my care.
I don't see how you can pretend otherwise.
That's easy, I'm not pretending.
Frank any myself mostly wish to ensure that people aren't pressurized to
wear helmets.
Making bicycling look like a dangerous activity is likely to reduce the attraction of cycling as a mode of transport.
On 4/2/2025 12:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:45:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/2/2025 10:36 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 02.04.2025 um 16:32 schrieb cyclintom:
On Thu Mar 27 19:28:12 2025 Frank Krygowski� wrote:
So explain. You now seem to say they would work for other causes
of TBI. And you say bicycling is not a very important or serious
risk of TBI. But you still tell people just riding on roads that
they should wear helmets. Apparently you don't do the same for
people walking near roads, despite evidence of greater risk. Nor
for people riding in cars, who dominate the TBI statistics for
transportation.
Frank, why are you so fixed in convincing people that they shouldn't >>>>> wear helmets? Exactly what business of yours what they do?
Frank any myself mostly wish to ensure that people aren't pressurized to >>>> wear helmets.
Making bicycling look like a dangerous activity is likely to reduce the >>>> attraction of cycling as a mode of transport.
Right, that's my main motivation, although there are other details. I've >>> long been disturbed by the false propaganda portraying ordinary
bicycling as some high risk activity. I'm also astonished that so very
many avid cyclists are so committed to furthering that false propaganda. >>> As I've said, I don't see that schizoid behavior from avid runners,
drivers, swimmers, etc. It's just weird.
Some details: Even if cycling were more dangerous than, say, walking in
a city, I don't think do-gooders should be nagging cyclists to attempt
to protect themselves with foam hats. People would rightfully be
offended if they got nagged every time they consumed a hot dog or
something sweet and carbonated. We don't see government funds telling
people not to try rock climbing, skateboard tricks, flying in light
aircraft or even skydiving, all of which are probably far more risky
than simply bicycling bareheaded.
So why do we accept government or Usenet posters telling us to never
ride without a helmet,
Very few governments do that, and Usenet posters are easy to ignore.
:-) Not for you! I keep wondering what percentage of my posts you are >compelled to snark at. It's got to be high!
You've got a problem. Seek help.
On 4/2/2025 1:07 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/2/2025 12:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/1/2025 3:14 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 7:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed the relative
frequency of TBI shown in the big pie chart at
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Or maybe you haven't seen data like in
https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-injury-facts
which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people die" [of TBI] .
But fewer than 500 are bicyclists.
I did address it, I stated that the numbers were relevant to my point. >>>>
And "Causes of Traumatic Brain Injury : Motor Vehicle Crashes
account for 50% of all TBIs. This includes autos, trucks,
motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians hit by vehicles.
The leading causes of TBI vary by age: falls are the leading >>>>> cause of TBI among persons aged 65 years and older; transportation
is the leading cause of TBI among persons under the age of 65 years. >>>>> Estimates suggest that sports related brain injury accounts >>>>> for close to 300,000 injuries each year, with winter sports such as
skiing and ice-skating accounting for close to 20,000 brain
injuries. (7) "
Again, bicycling is barely mentioned, and is justifiably given no
more prominence than autos, inside which far more incidents of TBI
occur.
I don't really fault you for having believed that bicycling is an
unusual and horrible risk for TBI. After all, the propaganda
machine has been in high gear for decades. But it's now time for
you to educate yourself and put things in the proper perspective.
But I _do_ fault you for repeatedly mischaracterizing my position.
At no time did I state our otherwise imply that "bicycling is an
unusual and horrible risk for TBI. I stated this unequivocally
several times already.
But now it's time for you to stop building strawmen and try arguing
objectively rather than emotionally.
Zen, you have not precisely said "Bicycling is such an unusual risk
for TBI that you should always wear a helmet when you ride."
But you _did_ confess that you regularly tell people that if they are
going to ride on roads - normal roads! - they should always wear a
helmet.
Why do you always seem surprised about normal roads?
As far as we know, you have not said the same to pedestrians or
motorists, to skateboarders or scooter riders or joggers. That alone
is strong indication that you're treating bicycling as unusual.
I tell my grandchildren they can't roller skate, skateboard, or ride
their scooters without a helmet while under my care.
Really!
Do you let them run without a helmet? Say, playing tag?
On 4/1/2025 4:13 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/31/2025 8:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that >>>>>>>> his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the >>>>>>>> efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data
indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in traffic
between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero although "what
counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be appropriate questions here.
You may have missed it in all the chatter but Frank has repeatedly
been shown the following information as well as other _recent_
corroborating studies but has refused to acknowledge them, instead
choosing to state "There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies."
The information below very _clearly_ contradicts all three of those
claims. Instead of arguing the merits, data, and conclusions of these
studies, he instead deflects to rail against marketing tactics,
engages in whataboutism with walking, and builds strawmen to attack
the person (me) presenting the information.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/
"There was a significantly higher crude 30-day mortality in un-
helmeted cyclists 5.6% (4.8%–6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8%
(1.4%–2.2%) (p<0.001)."
"Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in severe
traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%–20.4%) versus 47.6%
(1211, 45.6%–49.5%) (p<0.001), intensive care unit requirement 19.6%
(797, 18.4%–20.8%) versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%–28.9%) (p<0.001) and
neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%–3.1%) versus 8.5% (217,
7.5%– 9.7%) (p<0.001)."
and another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28945822/
"Helmet use was shown to be protective against intracranial injury in
general (OR 0.2, CI 0.07-0.55, p = 0.002). A protective effect against
subdural haematoma was demonstrated (OR 0.14, CI 0.03-0.72, p = 0.02).
Wearing a helmet was also protective against skull fractures (OR 0.12,
CI 0.04-0.39, p<0.0001) but not any other specific extracranial
injuries."
And another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
"179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in
the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head
injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by
53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously
injured cyclists by 34%. "
The other studies previously posted here that prove the effectiveness
of helmets (which Frank also chooses to dismiss with no rational
explanation) are:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-
More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-
Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-
surprise- you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
Let's see: A "Case-control" study of cyclists presenting to ER. Oh, and another "case-control" ER study. And what's this? Yet another "case-
control" ER study? And gosh, another "case-control" ER study?
OK: Case-control studies are very easy to do, and if they confirm the accepted truth (that bike helmets are very worthwhile) they are easy to
get published. The message - either implied or specifically stated - is
that "since the people in ER without helmets did worse than the people
in ER with helmets, then everybody should wear a helmet each time they
ride a bike."
The first hidden assumption is that the people in ER are representative
of "everyone who rides a bike." That is obviously not the case. Only a minuscule percentage of people who have ridden bikes have ever presented
to ER. Almost all bike riders will never bump their head, at least never beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people will never ever need a helmet.
The second (hidden?) assumption is that if everybody does begin wearing
a helmet each time they ride a bike, society will somehow benefit -
perhaps by lower medical costs? Perhaps by lives saved? But one of my
main points has been that has not happened. When helmet use rapidly
increased in the U.S., in the 80s and 90s, there was no corresponding
drop in bike fatalities. You're going to love making fun of the source,
but the number are the numbers: https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html Pedestrian fatalities -
far larger in number than cyclist fatalities - dropped faster, despite
the shocking lack of pedestrian helmets.
Data analysis from more mainstream sources confirms that point. https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full? ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref says, among much else, "The linked
paper by Dennis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.f2674) investigates the policy question and concludes that the effect of Canadian helmet
legislation on hospital admission for cycling head injuries “seems to
have been minimal.”1 Other ecological studies have come to different conclusions,2 but the current study has somewhat superior methodology— controlling for background trends and modelling head injuries as a
proportion of all cycling injuries.
This finding of “no benefit” is superficially hard to reconcile with case-control studies, many of which have shown that people wearing
helmets are less likely to have a head injury.3 Such findings suggest
that, for individuals, helmets confer a benefit. These studies, however,
are vulnerable to many methodological shortcomings. If the controls are cyclists presenting with other injuries in the emergency department,
then analyses are conditional on having an accident and therefore assume
that wearing a helmet does not change the overall accident risk...."
Again, people showing up at ER are _not_ typical.
And while I've given up maintaining my files of helmet studies, there certainly are case-control studies showing that helmets are not
wonderfully effective. I've previously linked the Crocker paper from
Austin, that found that when controlling for the confounding factor of
blood alcohol, helmets on adults did not display statistically
significant benefit.
Here's another case-control paper that claims large benefit, but the
comments (by a correspondent of mine) show less enthusiasm when he
drilled down a bit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/ pii/S1538958824000766
So odds ratio of 0.52 on "head injury." Wow. But my correspondent's
comments:
.......
"I note some specifics where helmeted cyclists are the losers …
Concussion : non helmeted 26.9%, helmeted 31.0% [Read that again, Zen!]
Facial fracture : non helmeted 5.1%, helmeted 8.0%
Facial lesion : non helmeted 20.0%, helmeted 26.5%
Intracranial hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.7%, helmeted 1.8%
Intracranial hemorrhage, not specified : non helmeted 0.6%, helmeted 0.9%
Subdural hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.1%, helmeted 2.7%
I also note there was suspected alcohol involvement among 20% of non
helmeted and 3% of helmeted."
.....
I can dig up more of that sort of thing, and we can devote the rest of
our lives to this discussion. But the benefits are modest at best, and
they are comparing only ER patients, who (again) are _not_ perfectly representative of the general population. There is data indicating the helmeted percentage of people who show up at ER exceeds the helemeted percentage in the general population. That showed up strongly in the
earliest pro-helmet papers, and in some others afterwards. Here are a
couple articles pointing that out for other activities: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31335753/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/joim.12363 that says, among much else, "Surprisingly, wearing a helmet was associated with significantly greater injury severity including the likelihood of a concussion." (I've seen similar data regarding bicycling, but I'll have
to dig deeper to find it.)
So again: People presenting to ER are not typical of the total
population. That alone casts doubt on case-control studies.
But let's take a wider view here. What are people trying to do when they promote bike helmets as being necessary? Or highly valuable? Or even mandatory?
I'm not going to assume, as Mr. Tricycle Rider does, that those people
are doing it so they can have power over others. (Um, even though he's apparently wanting that power over parents of kids!) I'm going to assume
they are hoping for some societal good - maybe to reduce the nation's
medical costs? Maybe to reduce general misery? Maybe they get an
unspecific frisson of pleasure out of having "done some good"? Feel free
to comment on why _you_ always counsel people to wear a helmet every
time they ride on a normal road!
In my view, none of those work. The only dollar-vs.-dollar study I've
seen on helmets came out of Australia many years ago, after its
nationwide MHLs came into effect. The helmets were a clear loser. Costs
spent on helmets _greatly_ exceeded any identifiable medical savings.
And IIRC, that didn't even take into account the beneficial effects of
riding a bike. As I've mentioned several times, I know of at least five studies that determined the benefits of bicycling greatly outweigh its
risks or detriments. Some of those studies specifically evaluated
medical costs - health care dollars saved vs. spent due to bicycling.
The _worst_ result was a 7 to 1 benefit in favor of bicycling. IOW, if
you dissuade people from riding, national medical costs will rise, not
fall.
It doesn't take much to dissuade people from bicycling. America has been doing it for decades, claiming riding is so dangerous that you really
should not do it unless you wear a really, really weird hat - or unless
you ride only on some very special strip of asphalt, which is also fear mongering.
If the special, funny looking hat really did confer huge benefit, it
should confer it on non-cyclists who suffer far more brain injuries.
Again, pedestrian and motorist TBIs and fatalities dwarf those of
bicyclists. Even you, a big mileage rider, are statistically more likely
to get serious TBI while in your car. But I doubt very much that you put
on the helmet (that you already own!) when you're driving. And remember,
the most easily identifiable TBI victims are the ones who are dead. But bicyclists comprise only about 0.6% of America's TBI fatalities.
TLDR? Case-control claims about wonderful bike helmet benefit have not
panned out in the general population. ER visitors are not the same as
the general population. But if helmets are such a miracle, why not not
spend the same energy promoting them for pedestrians (including - gasp!
- runners, who move fast!), for motorists (yes, it's been seriously proposed), for people using ladders, people using stairways, elderly
people just walking around their homes, people playing pickleball (I
don't, but I've heard our bike club members' experiences) etc. etc.
Why "dangerize" bicycling? Bicycling is _not_ very dangerous. I does us
no good to pretend it is.
On 4/2/2025 11:32 AM, sms wrote:
Also see "No strong evidence bicycle helmet legislation
deters cycling" which can be downloaded at <https://
www.researchgate.net/ publication/305388486_No_strong_evidence_bicycle_helmet_legislation_deters_cycling>, (click on Download full-text PDF). See Table 1 on page 1.
The reality is that cycling rates go up and down for a
variety of factors. Weather, the economy, the availability
or lack of availability of mass transit, and in 2020, the
pandemic and the rise of remote-working.
In China, commuter cycling plunged as cities began building
subway systems. In 1992 there were no subway lines in
Shanghai. This is the map today: https:// www.chinaairlinetravel.com/metro/shanghai/map.html.
On 4/2/2025 2:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/2/2025 1:07 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/2/2025 12:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/1/2025 3:14 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 7:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed
the relative frequency of TBI shown in the big pie
chart at
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Or maybe you haven't seen data like in
https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-
injury-facts
which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people
die" [of TBI] . But fewer than 500 are bicyclists.
I did address it, I stated that the numbers were
relevant to my point.
And "Causes of Traumatic Brain Injury : Motor
Vehicle Crashes account for 50% of all TBIs. This
includes autos, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, and
pedestrians hit by vehicles.
The leading causes of TBI vary by age: falls are
the leading cause of TBI among persons aged 65 years
and older; transportation is the leading cause of TBI
among persons under the age of 65 years.
Estimates suggest that sports related brain
injury accounts for close to 300,000 injuries each
year, with winter sports such as skiing and ice-
skating accounting for close to 20,000 brain injuries.
(7) "
Again, bicycling is barely mentioned, and is
justifiably given no more prominence than autos,
inside which far more incidents of TBI occur.
I don't really fault you for having believed that
bicycling is an unusual and horrible risk for TBI.
After all, the propaganda machine has been in high
gear for decades. But it's now time for you to educate
yourself and put things in the proper perspective.
But I _do_ fault you for repeatedly mischaracterizing
my position.
At no time did I state our otherwise imply that
"bicycling is an
unusual and horrible risk for TBI. I stated this
unequivocally several times already.
But now it's time for you to stop building strawmen and
try arguing objectively rather than emotionally.
Zen, you have not precisely said "Bicycling is such an
unusual risk for TBI that you should always wear a
helmet when you ride."
But you _did_ confess that you regularly tell people
that if they are going to ride on roads - normal roads!
- they should always wear a helmet.
Why do you always seem surprised about normal roads?
As far as we know, you have not said the same to
pedestrians or motorists, to skateboarders or scooter
riders or joggers. That alone is strong indication that
you're treating bicycling as unusual.
I tell my grandchildren they can't roller skate,
skateboard, or ride their scooters without a helmet while
under my care.
Really!
Do you let them run without a helmet? Say, playing tag?
yup
On 4/2/2025 2:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/2/2025 1:07 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/2/2025 12:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/1/2025 3:14 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 7:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed the relative >>>>>> frequency of TBI shown in the big pie chart at
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Or maybe you haven't seen data like in
https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-injury-facts
which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people die" [of TBI] . >>>>>> But fewer than 500 are bicyclists.
I did address it, I stated that the numbers were relevant to my point. >>>>>
And "Causes of Traumatic Brain Injury :��� Motor Vehicle Crashes
account for 50% of all TBIs. This includes autos, trucks,
motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians hit by vehicles.
���� The leading causes of TBI vary by age: falls are the leading
cause of TBI among persons aged 65 years and older; transportation >>>>>> is the leading cause of TBI among persons under the age of 65 years. >>>>>> ���� Estimates suggest that sports related brain injury accounts
for close to 300,000 injuries each year, with winter sports such as >>>>>> skiing and ice-skating accounting for close to 20,000 brain
injuries. (7) "
Again, bicycling is barely mentioned, and is justifiably given no
more prominence than autos, inside which far more incidents of TBI >>>>>> occur.
I don't really fault you for having believed that bicycling is an
unusual and� horrible risk for TBI. After all, the propaganda
machine has been in high gear for decades. But it's now time for
you to educate yourself and put things in the proper perspective.
But I _do_ fault you for repeatedly mischaracterizing my position.
At no time did I state our otherwise imply that "bicycling is an
��unusual and� horrible risk for TBI. I stated this unequivocally
several times already.
But now it's time for you to stop building strawmen and try arguing
objectively rather than emotionally.
Zen, you have not precisely said "Bicycling is such an unusual risk
for TBI that you should always wear a helmet when you ride."
But you _did_ confess that you regularly tell people that if they are
going to ride on roads - normal roads! - they should always wear a
helmet.
Why do you always seem surprised about normal roads?
As far as we know, you have not said the same to pedestrians or
motorists, to skateboarders or scooter riders or joggers. That alone
is strong indication that you're treating bicycling as unusual.
I tell my grandchildren they can't roller skate, skateboard, or ride
their scooters without a helmet while under my care.
Really!
Do you let them run without a helmet? Say, playing tag?
yup
Urban transit has certainly enhanced my daughter's riding. TheAh, Chicago.
escalating assault/murder rate on the CTA has driven her to ride all
winter long.
On 4/2/2025 1:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Urban transit has certainly enhanced my daughter's riding.Ah, Chicago.
The escalating assault/murder rate on the CTA has driven
her to ride all winter long.
My daughter lives in San Francisco. The Muni is pretty safe
in the daytime, but at night there are a lot of sketchy
entrances to the streetcar lines downtown. BART also has a
lot of crime. I use Caltrain to go into San Francisco from
Silicon Valley and it's quite safe until you get to the
station in San Francisco which is in a sketchy area.
But then since you don't believe in work,Liebermann must have looked it up and sent it to you.
My crippling injury occurred when I fell 2' at only 5 mph.
On 4/2/2025 6:31 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/2/2025 1:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Urban transit has certainly enhanced my daughter's riding.Ah, Chicago.
The escalating assault/murder rate on the CTA has driven
her to ride all winter long.
My daughter lives in San Francisco. The Muni is pretty safe
in the daytime, but at night there are a lot of sketchy
entrances to the streetcar lines downtown. BART also has a
lot of crime. I use Caltrain to go into San Francisco from
Silicon Valley and it's quite safe until you get to the
station in San Francisco which is in a sketchy area.
Yes, local variance.
At her neighborhood train station, there were four murders
last year. And Rogers Park is as nice a neighborhood as
there is in Chicago (northernmost neighborhood on the
lakefront):
https://crimegrade.org/violent-crime-chicago-il/
On 4/2/2025 4:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/2/2025 2:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/2/2025 1:07 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/2/2025 12:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/1/2025 3:14 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/27/2025 7:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed the
relative frequency of TBI shown in the big pie chart at
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Or maybe you haven't seen data like in
https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-injury-facts
which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people die" [of
TBI] . But fewer than 500 are bicyclists.
I did address it, I stated that the numbers were relevant to my point. >>>>>>
But I _do_ fault you for repeatedly mischaracterizing my position. >>>>>> At no time did I state our otherwise imply that "bicycling is an
And "Causes of Traumatic Brain Injury :��� Motor Vehicle Crashes >>>>>>> account for 50% of all TBIs. This includes autos, trucks,
motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians hit by vehicles.
���� The leading causes of TBI vary by age: falls are the leading >>>>>>> cause of TBI among persons aged 65 years and older; transportation >>>>>>> is the leading cause of TBI among persons under the age of 65 years. >>>>>>> ���� Estimates suggest that sports related brain injury accounts >>>>>>> for close to 300,000 injuries each year, with winter sports such >>>>>>> as skiing and ice-skating accounting for close to 20,000 brain
injuries. (7) "
Again, bicycling is barely mentioned, and is justifiably given no >>>>>>> more prominence than autos, inside which far more incidents of TBI >>>>>>> occur.
I don't really fault you for having believed that bicycling is an >>>>>>> unusual and� horrible risk for TBI. After all, the propaganda
machine has been in high gear for decades. But it's now time for >>>>>>> you to educate yourself and put things in the proper perspective. >>>>>>
��unusual and� horrible risk for TBI. I stated this unequivocally
several times already.
But now it's time for you to stop building strawmen and try arguing >>>>>> objectively rather than emotionally.
Zen, you have not precisely said "Bicycling is such an unusual risk
for TBI that you should always wear a helmet when you ride."
But you _did_ confess that you regularly tell people that if they
are going to ride on roads - normal roads! - they should always wear >>>>> a helmet.
Why do you always seem surprised about normal roads?
As far as we know, you have not said the same to pedestrians or
motorists, to skateboarders or scooter riders or joggers. That alone >>>>> is strong indication that you're treating bicycling as unusual.
I tell my grandchildren they can't roller skate, skateboard, or ride
their scooters without a helmet while under my care.
Really!
Do you let them run without a helmet? Say, playing tag?
yup
Scandalous! Why, if just _one_ scratch on the head can be prevented ... ;-)
On 4/3/2025 11:31 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Liebermann, no one but Flunky pays the slightest heed to you anymore. Why do you even bother posting?
I strongly disagree. Jeff is one of the most consistently erudite people >posting here. His posts almost always have value. Even the ones where he >points out your foolishness, Tom, have value. They save us the trouble
of doing the same.
I wonder if, as a discipline for the rest of Lent at least, you could
give up insulting your betters.
On 4/3/2025 12:05 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Apr 3 11:47:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:31 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Liebermann, no one but Flunky pays the slightest heed to you anymore.
Why do you even bother posting?
I strongly disagree. Jeff is one of the most consistently erudite people >>> posting here. His posts almost always have value. Even the ones where he >>> points out your foolishness, Tom, have value. They save us the trouble
of doing the same.
I wonder if, as a discipline for the rest of Lent at least, you could
give up insulting your betters.
Since my answer to his posting was to point out that his claim was that
the face is not part of the head, I am not at all surprised thaty you
consider him erudite. Apparently you don't believe that ANY protection
for the head is any better than your cycling cap. I guess stupid runs in
tribes and you, Liebermann and Flunky all wear the same warpaint.
Tom, your constant stream of insults really does not make your targets
look worse. It only makes you look (even) worse.
On Thu Apr 3 13:49:23 2025 John B. wrote:
Lieberman and Liebermann are names deriving from Lieb, a German and
Jewish (Ashkenazic) nickname for a person from the German lieb or
Yiddish lib, meaning 'dear, beloved'.
Dear Beloved? Tom?
That wasn't topic drift.It was merely a very poor attempt to attack me.
Liebermann, unfortunately, has spent his entire life with the only one loving him was his own mother. I'm not special in any way to his hatred. His past employer couldn't stand him to the point where he wouldn't even give him a reference. His fatherdidn't like him and only gave him an inheritance out of pure responsibility.
At some point you would expect him to look back on his life and see these things but instead he doubles down. He will die a lonely and forgotten man.
On Wed Apr 2 20:30:16 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2025 01:59:43 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
But then since you don't believe in work,Liebermann must have looked it up and sent it to you.
Nope. You can do your own research. I was busy trying to determine
how you managed to have a "concussion", "crippling injury" or TBI in
2010 when your head never hit the ground.
03/25/2025
Message-ID: <1IAEP.752812$[email protected]>
My crippling injury occurred when I fell 2' at only 5 mph.
05/14/2010
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Sgfdk0T4HlI/m/htJl6zQSimgJ> >> "My CARBON fork collapsed about three months ago and planted me face
first onto the asphalt. The helmet never even touched the ground. The
injuries caused are just beginning to clear up. Thinking that a
helmet will give you much if any protection is completely nuts."
01/06/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/K-cG5lehtd0/m/X3FtbYbXAAAJ> >> "I am permanently disabled and so is the cop who managed to get me
back from the last step from death."
Plenty more strange cognitive effects found when searching for
"concussion":
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=concussion%20author%3Atom%20author%3Akunich>
1. Liebermann is the only person in the world that doesn't know that your face is part of your head!
2. Since this time I have seen the helmet I was wearing at the time and the entire forehead part of the foam helmet was entirely crushed.
would flatten whatever helmet you were wearing at the time? This is03/25/2025
Message-ID: <1IAEP.752812$[email protected]>
My crippling injury occurred when I fell 2' at only 5 mph.
3. Why do you suppose that poor unemployable Liebermann works so hard to prove me wrong that he is willing to misunderstand (or is it lying) everyuthing I say?
Liebermann, no one but Flunky pays the slightest heed to you anymore. Why do you even bother posting?
2. Since this time I have seen the helmet I was wearing at the time and the entire forehead part of the foam helmet was entirely crushed.
On Wed Apr 2 09:56:56 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/1/2025 5:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Mar 26 17:11:00 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Mar 26 18:51:39 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 23:15:20 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 12:36 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 10:36:01 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't know that's true. Based on your claims here, I think my
typical riding speed is faster than yours. I'm sure I couldn't keep up
with Zen or Mark, but I suspect most of us old guys here would ride at
similar speeds. I know that on the club rides I attend (I'm typically
the oldest of the attendees) I usually finish in the front half of the
group, and often first. Not that they're races. I just enjoy speeding up
at times.
Not that it matters. I dispute the implication that faster riders >>>>>>>>>> naturally crash more. It takes miles of riding to get fast, and people
with miles of experience tend to be more skillful.
You may be an exception.
Frank, obviously you do not ride with a Garmin and believe that my >>>>>>>>> claim of riding an average soeed of 11 mph is slow.
You're right. I don't use a Garmin. I still use ordinary cyclometers - a
couple Avocets that I've managed to keep running, and a couple Cateyes,
etc. They give me average speed. 11 mph _is_ slow. I don't think I've >>>>>>>> ever averaged that slow unless on a recreation ride with my wife, >>>>>>>> grandkids or a good friend who is quite slow.
Those meters only sverage moving speed. You are supposed to be an >>>>>>> engineer and you don't understand the effects of stop lights and a 30-45
minute pause at a coffee shop on a meter that measures average speed from
total time from turning the meter on? All I can say is that you're some kind of engineer.
As do Garmin connect and Strava ie doesn?t count the stationary time, aka
waiting at traffic lights or time at the cafe or so on.
I have an 830 and a 1030 and neither one of those has an autostop feature.
lol...wow...._ALL_ Garmin cycling computers have an autopause function, >>>> They've had that feature since Garmin first released cycling computers >>>> in 2006.
830 user manual
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/edge830/EN-US/Edge_830_OM_EN-US.pdf
Page 54
Using Auto Pause
You can use the Auto Pause feature to pause the timer automatically when >>>> you stop moving or when your speed drops below a specified value. This >>>> feature is helpful if your ride includes stop lights or other places
where you need to slow down or stop.
NOTE: History is not recorded while the timer is stopped or paused.
1 Select > Activity Profiles.
2 Select a profile.
3 Select Auto Features > Auto Pause.
4 Select an option:
? Select When Stopped to pause the timer automatically when you stop moving.
? Select Custom Speed to pause the timer automatically when your speed >>>> drops below a specified value.
5 If necessary, customize optional time data fields (Adding a Data
Screen, page 51).
1030 user manual
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/edge1030/EN-US/Edge_1030_OM_EN-US.pdf
Page 53
Using Auto Pause
You can use the Auto Pause feature to pause the timer automatically when >>>> you stop moving or when your speed drops below a specified value. This >>>> feature is helpful if your ride includes stop lights or other places
where you need to slow down or stop.
NOTE: History is not recorded while the timer is stopped or paused.
1 Select > Activity Profiles.
2 Select a profile.
3 Select Auto Features > Auto Pause.
4 Select an option:
? Select When Stopped to pause the timer automatically when you stop moving.
? Select Custom Speed to pause the timer automatically when your speed >>>> drops below a specified value.
5 If necessary, customize optional time data fields (Adding a Data
Screen, page 50).
And if you push "stop" on the clock, when you restart, they restart the >>>> mileage from zero. Now it has saved the previous ride and you can
downlooad the same total mileage. But if you leave it, it measures the >>>> time from start to finish regardless of speed.
Why do you talk about an auto-pause function but you can't point it out?
Hmm...so I copy/pasted from the manuals exactly how to enable auto
pause, and you interpret that as "you can't point it out"?
I can find where you can manually pause a ride and then pick it up by turning it back on with Express, but not auto-poause.
That's because you're an idiot and an asshole, who is so blindingly
ignorant and arrogant that you claim I'm 'unable to point out how to use
the autopause function' when I copy/pasted the information directly from
the manual (as well as gave you links to the manuals so you could
download them).
FWIW, I have a Garmin 530 and 745, the instructions are identical for
setting up on both of those, which I have done.
You are pitifully beyond all help.
If you follow those direction exactly, you do not find the correct setup screen. So if you set your own up why didn't you mention that error?
But I discovered the error, got to the setup screen and I think that it is setup now. Though I will have to try it out and see if it works Saturday.sent it to you.
However, the latest software update has made it unnesesary snxce it now tells you the moving average rather than an overall average. So all of your "work" is for nothing. But then since you don't believe in work,Liebermann must have looked it up and
On 4/1/2025 4:13 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/31/2025 8:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that >>>>>>>> his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the >>>>>>>> efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data
indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in traffic
between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero although "what
counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be appropriate questions here.
You may have missed it in all the chatter but Frank has repeatedly
been shown the following information as well as other _recent_
corroborating studies but has refused to acknowledge them, instead
choosing to state "There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies."
The information below very _clearly_ contradicts all three of those
claims. Instead of arguing the merits, data, and conclusions of these
studies, he instead deflects to rail against marketing tactics,
engages in whataboutism with walking, and builds strawmen to attack
the person (me) presenting the information.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/
"There was a significantly higher crude 30-day mortality in un-
helmeted cyclists 5.6% (4.8%–6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8%
(1.4%–2.2%) (p<0.001)."
"Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in severe
traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%–20.4%) versus 47.6%
(1211, 45.6%–49.5%) (p<0.001), intensive care unit requirement 19.6%
(797, 18.4%–20.8%) versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%–28.9%) (p<0.001) and
neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%–3.1%) versus 8.5% (217,
7.5%– 9.7%) (p<0.001)."
and another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28945822/
"Helmet use was shown to be protective against intracranial injury in
general (OR 0.2, CI 0.07-0.55, p = 0.002). A protective effect against
subdural haematoma was demonstrated (OR 0.14, CI 0.03-0.72, p = 0.02).
Wearing a helmet was also protective against skull fractures (OR 0.12,
CI 0.04-0.39, p<0.0001) but not any other specific extracranial
injuries."
And another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
"179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in
the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head
injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by
53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously
injured cyclists by 34%. "
The other studies previously posted here that prove the effectiveness
of helmets (which Frank also chooses to dismiss with no rational
explanation) are:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-
More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-
Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-
surprise- you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
Let's see: A "Case-control" study of cyclists presenting to ER. Oh, and another "case-control" ER study. And what's this? Yet another "case-
control" ER study? And gosh, another "case-control" ER study?
OK: Case-control studies are very easy to do, and if they confirm the accepted truth (that bike helmets are very worthwhile) they are easy to
get published.
The message - either implied or specifically stated - is
that "since the people in ER without helmets did worse than the people
in ER with helmets, then everybody should wear a helmet each time they
ride a bike."
The first hidden assumption is that the people in ER are representative
of "everyone who rides a bike." That is obviously not the case. Only a minuscule percentage of people who have ridden bikes have ever presented
to ER. Almost all bike riders will never bump their head, at least never beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people will never ever need a helmet.
The second (hidden?) assumption is that if everybody does begin wearing
a helmet each time they ride a bike, society will somehow benefit -
perhaps by lower medical costs? Perhaps by lives saved? But one of my
main points has been that has not happened.
When helmet use rapidly
increased in the U.S., in the 80s and 90s, there was no corresponding
drop in bike fatalities. You're going to love making fun of the source,
but the number are the numbers:
https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
Pedestrian fatalities -
far larger in number than cyclist fatalities - dropped faster, despite
the shocking lack of pedestrian helmets.
Data analysis from more mainstream sources confirms that point. https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full? ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref says, among much else, "The linked
paper by Dennis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.f2674) investigates the policy question and concludes that the effect of Canadian helmet
legislation on hospital admission for cycling head injuries “seems to
have been minimal.”1 Other ecological studies have come to different conclusions,2 but the current study has somewhat superior methodology— controlling for background trends and modelling head injuries as a
proportion of all cycling injuries.
This finding of “no benefit” is superficially hard to reconcile with case-control studies, many of which have shown that people wearing
helmets are less likely to have a head injury.3 Such findings suggest
that, for individuals, helmets confer a benefit. These studies, however,
are vulnerable to many methodological shortcomings. If the controls are cyclists presenting with other injuries in the emergency department,
then analyses are conditional on having an accident and therefore assume
that wearing a helmet does not change the overall accident risk...."
Again, people showing up at ER are _not_ typical.
And while I've given up maintaining my files of helmet studies, there certainly are case-control studies showing that helmets are not
wonderfully effective. I've previously linked the Crocker paper from
Austin, that found that when controlling for the confounding factor of
blood alcohol, helmets on adults did not display statistically
significant benefit.
Here's another case-control paper that claims large benefit, but the
comments (by a correspondent of mine) show less enthusiasm when he
drilled down a bit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/ pii/S1538958824000766
So odds ratio of 0.52 on "head injury." Wow. But my correspondent's
comments:
.......
"I note some specifics where helmeted cyclists are the losers …
Concussion : non helmeted 26.9%, helmeted 31.0% [Read that again, Zen!]
Facial fracture : non helmeted 5.1%, helmeted 8.0%
Facial lesion : non helmeted 20.0%, helmeted 26.5%
Intracranial hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.7%, helmeted 1.8%
Intracranial hemorrhage, not specified : non helmeted 0.6%, helmeted 0.9%
Subdural hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.1%, helmeted 2.7%
I also note there was suspected alcohol involvement among 20% of non
helmeted and 3% of helmeted."
.....
I can dig up more of that sort of thing, and we can devote the rest of
our lives to this discussion. But the benefits are modest at best,
and
they are comparing only ER patients, who (again) are _not_ perfectly representative of the general population.
There is data indicating the
helmeted percentage of people who show up at ER exceeds the helemeted percentage in the general population. That showed up strongly in the
earliest pro-helmet papers, and in some others afterwards. Here are a
couple articles pointing that out for other activities: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31335753/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/joim.12363 that says, among much else, "Surprisingly, wearing a helmet was associated with significantly greater injury severity including the likelihood of a concussion." (I've seen similar data regarding bicycling, but I'll have
to dig deeper to find it.)
So again: People presenting to ER are not typical of the total
population. That alone casts doubt on case-control studies.
But let's take a wider view here. What are people trying to do when they promote bike helmets as being necessary? Or highly valuable? Or even mandatory?
I'm not going to assume, as Mr. Tricycle Rider does, that those people
are doing it so they can have power over others. (Um, even though he's apparently wanting that power over parents of kids!) I'm going to assume
they are hoping for some societal good - maybe to reduce the nation's
medical costs? Maybe to reduce general misery? Maybe they get an
unspecific frisson of pleasure out of having "done some good"? Feel free
to comment on why _you_ always counsel people to wear a helmet every
time they ride on a normal road!
In my view, none of those work. The only dollar-vs.-dollar study I've
seen on helmets came out of Australia many years ago, after its
nationwide MHLs came into effect. The helmets were a clear loser. Costs
spent on helmets _greatly_ exceeded any identifiable medical savings.
And IIRC, that didn't even take into account the beneficial effects of
riding a bike. As I've mentioned several times, I know of at least five studies that determined the benefits of bicycling greatly outweigh its
risks or detriments. Some of those studies specifically evaluated
medical costs - health care dollars saved vs. spent due to bicycling.
The _worst_ result was a 7 to 1 benefit in favor of bicycling. IOW, if
you dissuade people from riding, national medical costs will rise, not
fall.
It doesn't take much to dissuade people from bicycling. America has been doing it for decades, claiming riding is so dangerous that you really
should not do it unless you wear a really, really weird hat - or unless
you ride only on some very special strip of asphalt, which is also fear mongering.
If the special, funny looking hat really did confer huge benefit, it
should confer it on non-cyclists who suffer far more brain injuries.
Again, pedestrian and motorist TBIs and fatalities dwarf those of
bicyclists. Even you, a big mileage rider, are statistically more likely
to get serious TBI while in your car. But I doubt very much that you put
on the helmet (that you already own!) when you're driving. And remember,
the most easily identifiable TBI victims are the ones who are dead. But bicyclists comprise only about 0.6% of America's TBI fatalities.
TLDR? Case-control claims about wonderful bike helmet benefit have not
panned out in the general population. ER visitors are not the same as
the general population. But if helmets are such a miracle, why not not
spend the same energy promoting them for pedestrians (including - gasp!
- runners, who move fast!), for motorists (yes, it's been seriously proposed), for people using ladders, people using stairways, elderly
people just walking around their homes, people playing pickleball (I
don't, but I've heard our bike club members' experiences) etc. etc.
Why "dangerize" bicycling? Bicycling is _not_ very dangerous. I does us
no good to pretend it is.
On 4/2/2025 2:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/1/2025 4:13 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/31/2025 8:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It
seems to me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to
those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced
him of the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population
data indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing
infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data
for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent
benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting
studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
time during which
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no
significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several
articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It
seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths >>>>> Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed
in traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not
zero although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may
be appropriate questions here.
You may have missed it in all the chatter but Frank has
repeatedly been shown the following information as well
as other _recent_ corroborating studies but has refused
to acknowledge them, instead choosing to state "There is
no such nationwide data for bike helmets, and indeed
nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting
studies."
The information below very _clearly_ contradicts all
three of those claims. Instead of arguing the merits,
data, and conclusions of these studies, he instead
deflects to rail against marketing tactics, engages in
whataboutism with walking, and builds strawmen to attack
the person (me) presenting the information.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/
"There was a significantly higher crude 30-day mortality
in un- helmeted cyclists 5.6% (4.8%–6.6%) versus helmeted
cyclists 1.8% (1.4%–2.2%) (p<0.001)."
"Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in
severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%–
20.4%) versus 47.6% (1211, 45.6%–49.5%) (p<0.001),
intensive care unit requirement 19.6% (797, 18.4%–20.8%)
versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%–28.9%) (p<0.001) and
neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%–3.1%) versus
8.5% (217, 7.5%– 9.7%) (p<0.001)."
and another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28945822/
"Helmet use was shown to be protective against
intracranial injury in general (OR 0.2, CI 0.07-0.55, p =
0.002). A protective effect against subdural haematoma
was demonstrated (OR 0.14, CI 0.03-0.72, p = 0.02).
Wearing a helmet was also protective against skull
fractures (OR 0.12, CI 0.04-0.39, p<0.0001) but not any
other specific extracranial injuries."
And another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
"179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are
included in the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets
was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head
injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury
by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously
injured cyclists by 34%. "
The other studies previously posted here that prove the
effectiveness of helmets (which Frank also chooses to
dismiss with no rational explanation) are:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-
Report-Finds- More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-
Accidents-CPSC-Says-it- Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-
statistics-may- surprise- you?
srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
Let's see: A "Case-control" study of cyclists presenting
to ER. Oh, and another "case-control" ER study. And what's
this? Yet another "case- control" ER study? And gosh,
another "case-control" ER study?
Sure, why not?
OK: Case-control studies are very easy to do, and if they
confirm the accepted truth (that bike helmets are very
worthwhile) they are easy to get published.
I'd be very surprised if someone came up with different
findings _couldn't_ get them study published due to your
perceived cultural bias
The message - either implied or specifically stated - is
that "since the people in ER without helmets did worse
than the people in ER with helmets, then everybody should
wear a helmet each time they ride a bike."
ok, how about "since the people in ER without seatbelts did
worse than the people in ER with seatbelts, then everybody
should wear a seatbelt each time they drive a car."
Seatbelt data is taken from ER visits. According to you,
that data is worthless.
The first hidden assumption is that the people in ER are
representative of "everyone who rides a bike." That is
obviously not the case. Only a minuscule percentage of
people who have ridden bikes have ever presented to ER.
Almost all bike riders will never bump their head, at
least never beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people will
never ever need a helmet.
ok, how about "The first hidden assumption is that the
people in ER are representative of "everyone who drives a
car." That is obviously not the case. Only a minuscule
percentage of people who have driven cars have ever
presented to ER. Almost all drivers will never crash their
car, at least never beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people
will never ever need a seat belt."
Your claim of the assumption that most people in the ER not
being representative of everyone that rides a bike is a red
herring. Sure, the vast majority of people who ride bikes
will never need a helmet, just like the vast majority of
people who drive will never need a seat belt. The issue is -
if there comes a time when you do crash, a helmet/seatbelt
can be extremely beneficial.
Remember that seatbelt detractors fear mongered by claiming
the seatbelts can cause internal injuries or prevent you
from getting out of the car after you crash. Sure there were
a few cases of that, just as there are a few cases where
wearing a helmet can create an unsafe situation - But as you
so often chant during RBT gun debates - you have to weigh
benefits vs detriments - the ER data shows helmets as the
clear winner.
The second (hidden?) assumption is that if everybody does
begin wearing a helmet each time they ride a bike, society
will somehow benefit - perhaps by lower medical costs?
Perhaps by lives saved? But one of my main points has been
that has not happened.
You have no data to support the claim that there has been no
drop in medical costs, and the ER data clearly shows lives
have been saved.
When helmet use rapidly increased in the U.S., in the 80s
and 90s, there was no corresponding drop in bike
fatalities. You're going to love making fun of the source,
but the number are the numbers:
https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
That data doesn't take into account the increase in cycling
popularity, a more accurate representation would be # of
deaths per mile ridden. IOW - those are raw numbers, not
percentages, and The ER data contradicts your assertion.
Pedestrian fatalities - far larger in number than cyclist
fatalities - dropped faster, despite the shocking lack of
pedestrian helmets.
Also note that there are two different Y scales used,
skewing the trendlines. There's a reason statisticians use
percentages - Toms chart is an illustration of that. Let's
se how an actuary would look at it
Data analysis from more mainstream sources confirms that
point.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full?
ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref says, among much else,
"The linked paper by Dennis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/
bmj.f2674) investigates the policy question and concludes
that the effect of Canadian helmet legislation on hospital
admission for cycling head injuries “seems to have been
minimal.”1 Other ecological studies have come to different
conclusions,2 but the current study has somewhat superior
methodology— controlling for background trends and
modelling head injuries as a proportion of all cycling
injuries.
I'm not sure what the motivation was of the people who wrote
that paper, but the study they linked (https://www.bmj.com/ content/346/bmj.f2674) directly contradicts their claim.
"Between 1994 and 2008, 66 716 hospital admissions were for
cycling related injuries in Canada. Between 1994 and 2003,
the rate of head injuries among young people decreased by
54.0% (95% confidence interval 48.2% to 59.8%) in provinces
with helmet legislation compared with 33.1% (23.3% to 42.9%)
in provinces and territories without legislation. Among
adults, the rate of head injuries decreased by 26.0% (16.0%
to 36.3%) in provinces with legislation but remained
constant in provinces and territories without legislation. "
Sure it goes no to say "injury rates were already decreasing
before the implementation of legislation and the rate of
decline was not appreciably altered on introduction of
legislation.", but they offer no other data such as the
previously mentioned incidents per miles ridden.
This finding of “no benefit” is superficially hard to
reconcile with case-control studies, many of which have
shown that people wearing helmets are less likely to have
a head injury.3 Such findings suggest that, for
individuals, helmets confer a benefit. These studies,
however, are vulnerable to many methodological
shortcomings. If the controls are cyclists presenting with
other injuries in the emergency department, then analyses
are conditional on having an accident and therefore assume
that wearing a helmet does not change the overall accident
risk...."
I see, so there's some ludicrous assumption that helmets are
supposed to prevent you from crashing? "wearing a helmet
does not change the overall accident risk."....welllllll
duuuuhhhhhh.
Where on earth did you ever get the idea that helmets are
supposed to prevent you from crashing?
Again, people showing up at ER are _not_ typical.
Again, that's a red herring.
And while I've given up maintaining my files of helmet
studies, there certainly are case-control studies showing
that helmets are not wonderfully effective. I've
previously linked the Crocker paper from Austin, that
found that when controlling for the confounding factor of
blood alcohol, helmets on adults did not display
statistically significant benefit.
Which is another tangent, but it also doesn't state whether
the deaths were from head injuries. Fail.
Here's another case-control paper that claims large
benefit, but the comments (by a correspondent of mine)
show less enthusiasm when he drilled down a bit: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/ pii/
S1538958824000766
So odds ratio of 0.52 on "head injury." Wow. But my
correspondent's comments:
.......
"I note some specifics where helmeted cyclists are the
losers …
Concussion : non helmeted 26.9%, helmeted 31.0% [Read that
again, Zen!]
As discussed before - the percentage of concussions is
likely to increase with a helmet wince the helmet can reduce
a fatal head impact. From your link:
"established evidence has reported a reduction in fatal head
injury of 65–71% in patients using a helmet (Høye 2018;
Olivier and Creighton 2017)."
Facial fracture : non helmeted 5.1%, helmeted 8.0%
Facial lesion : non helmeted 20.0%, helmeted 26.5%
Intracranial hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.7%, helmeted 1.8%
Intracranial hemorrhage, not specified : non helmeted
0.6%, helmeted 0.9%
Subdural hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.1%, helmeted 2.7%
I also note there was suspected alcohol involvement among
20% of non helmeted and 3% of helmeted."
.....
I can dig up more of that sort of thing, and we can devote
the rest of our lives to this discussion. But the benefits
are modest at best,
That's your spin, not bourne out by the data,
and they are comparing only ER patients, who (again) are
_not_ perfectly representative of the general population.
More herring, sir?
There is data indicating the helmeted percentage of people
who show up at ER exceeds the helemeted percentage in the
general population. That showed up strongly in the
earliest pro-helmet papers, and in some others afterwards.
Here are a couple articles pointing that out for other
activities:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31335753/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/
joim.12363 that says, among much else, "Surprisingly,
wearing a helmet was associated with
significantly greater injury severity including the
likelihood of a concussion." (I've seen similar data
regarding bicycling, but I'll have to dig deeper to find it.)
So again: People presenting to ER are not typical of the
total population. That alone casts doubt on case-control
studies.
You've made your point repeatedly, using data and
assumptions I find specious, lacking, and outdated.
IOW - you haven't convinced me.
But let's take a wider view here. What are people trying
to do when they promote bike helmets as being necessary?
Or highly valuable? Or even mandatory?
Give you a chance to survive a potentially fatal or
permanently debilitating head injury. I know, you're not
buying it. That's fine.
I'm not going to assume, as Mr. Tricycle Rider does, that
those people are doing it so they can have power over
others. (Um, even though he's apparently wanting that
power over parents of kids!) I'm going to assume they are
hoping for some societal good - maybe to reduce the
nation's medical costs? Maybe to reduce general misery?
Maybe they get an unspecific frisson of pleasure out of
having "done some good"? Feel free to comment on why _you_
always counsel people to wear a helmet every time they
ride on a normal road!
In my view, none of those work. The only dollar-vs.-dollar
study I've seen on helmets came out of Australia many
years ago, after its nationwide MHLs came into effect. The
helmets were a clear loser. Costs spent on helmets
_greatly_ exceeded any identifiable medical savings.
I put value into the money I've spent on helmets. They've
protected me from more severe head injuries more that I like
to remember.
And IIRC, that didn't even take into account the
beneficial effects of riding a bike. As I've mentioned
several times, I know of at least five studies that
determined the benefits of bicycling greatly outweigh its
risks or detriments. Some of those studies specifically
evaluated medical costs - health care dollars saved vs.
spent due to bicycling. The _worst_ result was a 7 to 1
benefit in favor of bicycling. IOW, if you dissuade people
from riding, national medical costs will rise, not fall.
It doesn't take much to dissuade people from bicycling.
America has been doing it for decades, claiming riding is
so dangerous that you really should not do it unless you
wear a really, really weird hat - or unless you ride only
on some very special strip of asphalt, which is also fear
mongering.
If the special, funny looking hat really did confer huge
benefit, it should confer it on non-cyclists who suffer
far more brain injuries. Again, pedestrian and motorist
TBIs and fatalities dwarf those of bicyclists. Even you, a
big mileage rider, are statistically more likely to get
serious TBI while in your car. But I doubt very much that
you put on the helmet (that you already own!) when you're
driving. And remember, the most easily identifiable TBI
victims are the ones who are dead. But bicyclists comprise
only about 0.6% of America's TBI fatalities.
Then why ban AR-15s?
TLDR? Case-control claims about wonderful bike helmet
benefit have not panned out in the general population. ER
visitors are not the same as the general population. But
if helmets are such a miracle, why not not spend the same
energy promoting them for pedestrians (including - gasp! -
runners, who move fast!), for motorists (yes, it's been
seriously proposed), for people using ladders, people
using stairways, elderly people just walking around their
homes, people playing pickleball (I don't, but I've heard
our bike club members' experiences) etc. etc.
Alarmism duly noted and dismissed as alarmist.
Why "dangerize" bicycling? Bicycling is _not_ very
dangerous. I does us no good to pretend it is.
So don't' wear a helmet. I have seen much information to
support that suggesting helmet use dissuades people from
cycling.
I'll continue to wear mine and feel good about it.
On 4/4/2025 5:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Here are a few points on which nearly everyone can agree:
For minor spills, a helmet is likely to prevent scalp road rash or minor
scalp lacerations. Since scalp wounds bleed impressively, this would
also present less drama to bystanders.
For very high force impacts, such as a direct hit at speed by something
of significant mass (train, truck, auto, Harley), a helmet, or anything
really, is unlikely to be effective in preventing a fatality. Sadly, we
see these deaths regularly (just not daily).
For intermediate impacts, which are most bicycle crashes, both solo and
with vehicles mating in traffic, helmets may and likely would at least
mitigate or possibly prevent injury.
end of kumbaya segment.
Despite general agreement, each individual rider makes his own
assessment of crash incidence and intensity probabilities, frequently
taking into consideration prior riding experience(s), his own real or
perceived awareness and handling skills, reports of other riders'
experiences, reported overall data, urban myths, gossip, opinions of
fellow riders, USCF/UCI policy, on and on.
I agree with a lot of that. (Kumbaya!) But not all. And I agree with
only a little of the final paragraph.
Among the many, many riders I know, I don't see much rational
assessment. Almost all of them have a crash experience of zero, meaning
their awareness and handling skills have always been adequate for their chosen riding conditions. They have roughly zero knowledge of overall
data. They may have heard of a crash or two in which a helmet was
claimed to have helped, but we can't really know that's true about any
given crash.
Instead of rational assessment, their judgment is based entirely on "Of course, you should wear a helmet every time you ride. You _could_ crash!
And almost everyone else wears a helmet, so why be different?"
On 4/4/2025 5:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Here are a few points on which nearly everyone can agree:
For minor spills, a helmet is likely to prevent scalp road rash or minor
scalp lacerations.� Since scalp wounds bleed impressively, this would
also present less drama to bystanders.
For very high force impacts, such as a direct hit at speed by something
of significant mass (train, truck, auto, Harley), a helmet, or anything
really, is unlikely to be effective in preventing a fatality.� Sadly, we
see these deaths regularly (just not daily).
For intermediate impacts, which are most bicycle crashes, both solo and
with vehicles mating in traffic, helmets may and likely would at least
mitigate or possibly prevent injury.
end of kumbaya segment.
Despite general agreement, each individual rider makes his own
assessment of crash incidence and intensity probabilities, frequently
taking into consideration prior riding experience(s), his own real or
perceived awareness and handling skills, reports of other riders'
experiences, reported overall data, urban myths, gossip, opinions of
fellow riders, USCF/UCI policy, on and on.
I agree with a lot of that. (Kumbaya!) But not all. And I agree with
only a little of the final paragraph.
Among the many, many riders I know, I don't see much rational
assessment. Almost all of them have a crash experience of zero, meaning
their awareness and handling skills have always been adequate for their >chosen riding conditions. They have roughly zero knowledge of overall
data. They may have heard of a crash or two in which a helmet was
claimed to have helped, but we can't really know that's true about any
given crash.
Instead of rational assessment, their judgment is based entirely on "Of >course, you should wear a helmet every time you ride. You _could_ crash!
And almost everyone else wears a helmet, so why be different?"
On 4/4/2025 4:18 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/2/2025 2:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/1/2025 4:13 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/31/2025 8:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during >>>>>>> which
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
�� Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski.� It seems to me >>>>>>>>>> that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the >>>>>>>>>> efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data
indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant
reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year�� U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet��� %������������� Deaths Helmet��� % >>>>>> 2013��� 464��� 62��� 127��� 17
2014��� 429��� 59��� 118��� 16
2015��� 439��� 53��� 139��� 17
2016��� 425��� 50��� 138��� 16
2017��� 420��� 52��� 126��� 16
2018��� 525��� 60��� 121��� 14
2019��� 520��� 61��� 127��� 15
2020��� 535��� 57��� 168��� 18
2021��� 599��� 62��� 143��� 15
2022��� 674��� 62��� 159��� 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in traffic
between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero although "what
counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be appropriate questions here.
You may have missed it in all the chatter but Frank has repeatedly
been shown the following information as well as other _recent_
corroborating studies but has refused to acknowledge them, instead
choosing to state "There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies."
The information below very _clearly_ contradicts all three of those
claims. Instead of arguing the merits, data, and conclusions of these
studies, he instead deflects to rail against marketing tactics,
engages in whataboutism with walking, and builds strawmen to attack
the person (me) presenting the information.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/
"There was a significantly higher crude 30-day mortality in un-
helmeted cyclists 5.6% (4.8%�6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8%
(1.4%�2.2%) (p<0.001)."
"Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in severe
traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%�20.4%) versus 47.6%
(1211, 45.6%�49.5%) (p<0.001), intensive care unit requirement 19.6%
(797, 18.4%�20.8%) versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%�28.9%) (p<0.001) and
neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%�3.1%) versus 8.5% (217,
7.5%� 9.7%) (p<0.001)."
and another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28945822/
"Helmet use was shown to be protective against intracranial injury in
general (OR 0.2, CI 0.07-0.55, p = 0.002). A protective effect
against subdural haematoma was demonstrated (OR 0.14, CI 0.03-0.72, p
= 0.02). Wearing a helmet was also protective against skull fractures
(OR 0.12, CI 0.04-0.39, p<0.0001) but not any other specific
extracranial injuries."
And another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
"179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in
the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce
head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain
injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or
seriously injured cyclists by 34%. "
The other studies previously posted here that prove the effectiveness
of helmets (which Frank also chooses to dismiss with no rational
explanation) are:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-
Finds- More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-
Says-it- Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-
surprise- you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
Let's see: A "Case-control" study of cyclists presenting to ER. Oh,
and another "case-control" ER study. And what's this? Yet another
"case- control" ER study? And gosh, another "case-control" ER study?
Sure, why not?
OK: Case-control studies are very easy to do, and if they confirm the
accepted truth (that bike helmets are very worthwhile) they are easy
to get published.
I'd be very surprised if someone came up with different findings
_couldn't_ get them study published due to your perceived cultural bias
The message - either implied or specifically stated - is that "sinceok, how about "since the people in ER without seatbelts did worse than
the people in ER without helmets did worse than the people in ER with
helmets, then everybody should wear a helmet each time they ride a bike." >>
the people in ER with seatbelts, then everybody should wear a seatbelt
each time they drive a car."
Seatbelt data is taken from ER visits. According to you, that data is
worthless.
The first hidden assumption is that the people in ER are
representative of "everyone who rides a bike." That is obviously not
the case. Only a minuscule percentage of people who have ridden bikes
have ever presented to ER. Almost all bike riders will never bump
their head, at least never beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people
will never ever need a helmet.
ok, how about "The first hidden assumption is that the people in ER are
representative of "everyone who drives a car." That is obviously not the
case. Only a minuscule percentage of people who have driven cars have
ever presented to ER. Almost all drivers will never crash their car, at
least never beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people will never ever need
a seat belt."
Your claim of the assumption that most people in the ER not being
representative of everyone that rides a bike is a red herring. Sure, the
vast majority of people who ride bikes will never need a helmet, just
like the vast majority of people who drive will never need a seat belt.
The issue is - if there comes a time when you do crash, a helmet/
seatbelt can be extremely beneficial.
Remember that seatbelt detractors fear mongered by claiming the
seatbelts can cause internal injuries or prevent you from getting out of
the car after you crash. Sure there were a few cases of that, just as
there are a few cases where wearing a helmet can create an unsafe
situation - But as you so often chant during RBT gun debates - you have
to weigh benefits vs detriments - the ER data shows helmets as the clear
winner.
The second (hidden?) assumption is that if everybody does begin
wearing a helmet each time they ride a bike, society will somehow
benefit - perhaps by lower medical costs? Perhaps by lives saved? But
one of my main points has been that has not happened.
You have no data to support the claim that there has been no drop in
medical costs, and the ER data clearly shows lives have been saved.
When helmet use rapidly increased in the U.S., in the 80s and 90s,
there was no corresponding drop in bike fatalities. You're going to
love making fun of the source, but the number are the numbers:
https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
That data doesn't take into account the increase in cycling popularity,
a more accurate representation would be # of deaths per mile ridden. IOW
- those are raw numbers, not percentages, and The ER data contradicts
your assertion.
Pedestrian fatalities - far larger in number than cyclist fatalities -
dropped faster, despite the shocking lack of pedestrian helmets.
Also note that there are two different Y scales used, skewing the
trendlines. There's a reason statisticians use percentages - Toms chart
is an illustration of that. Let's se how an actuary would look at it
Data analysis from more mainstream sources confirms that point.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full?
ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref �says, among much else, "The linked
paper by Dennis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.f2674) investigates
the policy question and concludes that the effect of Canadian helmet
legislation on hospital admission for cycling head injuries �seems to
have been minimal.�1 Other ecological studies have come to different
conclusions,2 but the current study has somewhat superior methodology�
controlling for background trends and modelling head injuries as a
proportion of all cycling injuries.
I'm not sure what the motivation was of the people who wrote that paper,
but the study they linked (https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674)
directly contradicts their claim.
"Between 1994 and 2008, 66?716 hospital admissions were for cycling
related injuries in Canada. Between 1994 and 2003, the rate of head
injuries among young people decreased by 54.0% (95% confidence interval
48.2% to 59.8%) in provinces with helmet legislation compared with 33.1%
(23.3% to 42.9%) in provinces and territories without legislation. Among
adults, the rate of head injuries decreased by 26.0% (16.0% to 36.3%) in
provinces with legislation but remained constant in provinces and
territories without legislation. "
Sure it goes no to say "injury rates were already decreasing before the
implementation of legislation and the rate of decline was not
appreciably altered on introduction of legislation.", but they offer no
other data such as the previously mentioned incidents per miles ridden.
This finding of �no benefit� is superficially hard to reconcile with
case-control studies, many of which have shown that people wearing
helmets are less likely to have a head injury.3 Such findings suggest
that, for individuals, helmets confer a benefit. These studies,
however, are vulnerable to many methodological shortcomings. If the
controls are cyclists presenting with other injuries in the emergency
department, then analyses are conditional on having an accident and
therefore assume that wearing a helmet does not change the overall
accident risk...."
I see, so there's some ludicrous assumption that helmets are supposed to
prevent you from crashing? "wearing a helmet does not change the overall
accident risk."....welllllll duuuuhhhhhh.
Where on earth did you ever get the idea that helmets are supposed to
prevent you from crashing?
Again, people showing up at ER are _not_ typical.
Again, that's a red herring.
And while I've given up maintaining my files of helmet studies, there
certainly are case-control studies showing that helmets are not
wonderfully effective. I've previously linked the Crocker paper from
Austin, that found that when controlling for the confounding factor of
blood alcohol, helmets on adults did not display statistically
significant benefit.
Which is another tangent, but it also doesn't state whether the deaths
were from head injuries. Fail.
Here's another case-control paper that claims large benefit, but the
comments (by a correspondent of mine) show less enthusiasm when he
drilled down a bit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/
pii/S1538958824000766
So odds ratio of 0.52 on "head injury." Wow. But my correspondent's
comments:
.......
"I note some specifics where helmeted cyclists are the losers �
Concussion : non helmeted 26.9%, helmeted 31.0% [Read that again, Zen!]
As discussed before - the percentage of concussions is likely to
increase with a helmet wince the helmet can reduce a fatal head impact.
From your link:
"established evidence has reported a reduction in fatal head injury of
65�71% in patients using a helmet (H�ye 2018; Olivier and Creighton 2017)." >>
Facial fracture : non helmeted 5.1%, helmeted 8.0%
Facial lesion : non helmeted 20.0%, helmeted 26.5%
Intracranial hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.7%, helmeted 1.8%
Intracranial hemorrhage, not specified : non helmeted 0.6%, helmeted 0.9% >>>
Subdural hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.1%, helmeted 2.7%
I also note there was suspected alcohol involvement among 20% of non
helmeted and 3% of helmeted."
.....
I can dig up more of that sort of thing, and we can devote the rest of
our lives to this discussion. But the benefits are modest at best,
That's your spin, not bourne out by the data,
and they are comparing only ER patients, who (again) are _not_
perfectly representative of the general population.
More herring, sir?
There is data indicating the helmeted percentage of people who show up
at ER exceeds the helemeted percentage in the general population. That
showed up strongly in the earliest pro-helmet papers, and in some
others afterwards. Here are a couple articles pointing that out for
other activities:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31335753/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/joim.12363��� that
says, among much else, "Surprisingly, wearing a helmet was associated
with
significantly greater injury severity including the likelihood of a
concussion."� (I've seen similar data regarding bicycling, but I'll
have to dig deeper to find it.)
So again: People presenting to ER are not typical of the total
population. That alone casts doubt on case-control studies.
You've made your point repeatedly, using data and assumptions I find
specious, lacking, and outdated.
IOW - you haven't convinced me.
But let's take a wider view here. What are people trying to do when
they promote bike helmets as being necessary? Or highly valuable? Or
even mandatory?
Give you a chance to survive a potentially fatal or permanently
debilitating head injury. I know, you're not buying it. That's fine.
I'm not going to assume, as Mr. Tricycle Rider does, that those people
are doing it so they can have power over others. (Um, even though he's
apparently wanting that power over parents of kids!) I'm going to
assume they are hoping for some societal good - maybe to reduce the
nation's medical costs? Maybe to reduce general misery? Maybe they get
an unspecific frisson of pleasure out of having "done some good"? Feel
free to comment on why _you_ always counsel people to wear a helmet
every time they ride on a normal road!
In my view, none of those work. The only dollar-vs.-dollar study I've
seen on helmets came out of Australia many years ago, after its
nationwide MHLs came into effect. The helmets were a clear loser.
Costs spent on helmets _greatly_ exceeded any identifiable medical
savings.
I put value into the money I've spent on helmets. They've protected me
from more severe head injuries more that I like to remember.
And IIRC, that didn't even take into account the beneficial effects of
riding a bike. As I've mentioned several times, I know of at least
five studies that determined the benefits of bicycling greatly
outweigh its risks or detriments. Some of those studies specifically
evaluated medical costs - health care dollars saved vs. spent due to
bicycling. The _worst_ result was a 7 to 1 benefit in favor of
bicycling. IOW, if you dissuade people from riding, national medical
costs will rise, not fall.
It doesn't take much to dissuade people from bicycling. America has
been doing it for decades, claiming riding is so dangerous that you
really should not do it unless you wear a really, really weird hat -
or unless you ride only on some very special strip of asphalt, which
is also fear mongering.
If the special, funny looking hat really did confer huge benefit, it
should confer it on non-cyclists who suffer far more brain injuries.
Again, pedestrian and motorist TBIs and fatalities dwarf those of
bicyclists. Even you, a big mileage rider, are statistically more
likely to get serious TBI while in your car. But I doubt very much
that you put on the helmet (that you already own!) when you're
driving. And remember, the most easily identifiable TBI victims are
the ones who are dead. But bicyclists comprise only about 0.6% of
America's TBI fatalities.
Then why ban AR-15s?
TLDR? Case-control claims about wonderful bike helmet benefit have not
panned out in the general population. ER visitors are not the same as
the general population. But if helmets are such a miracle, why not not
spend the same energy promoting them for pedestrians (including -
gasp! - runners, who move fast!), for motorists (yes, it's been
seriously proposed), for people using ladders, people using stairways,
elderly people just walking around their homes, people playing
pickleball (I don't, but I've heard our bike club members'
experiences) etc. etc.
Alarmism duly noted and dismissed as alarmist.
Why "dangerize" bicycling? Bicycling is _not_ very dangerous. I does
us no good to pretend it is.
So don't' wear a helmet. I have seen much information to support that
suggesting helmet use dissuades people from cycling.
I'll continue to wear mine and feel good about it.
Let me start at the bottom of your post: You're welcome to continue
wearing your helmet! I've said many times I'm not trying to convince
people to stop wearing one.
And thank you for charitably saying "So don't wear a helmet." It's nice
that, unlike some, you're not trying to force your choice on others. As >Andrew says, kumbaya!
But working my way up your response: You obviously believe passionately
in the protective value of an inch of styrofoam. You have said you
promote its use for riding bicycles on any normal roads.
But you've tacitly admitted that you don't promote it for pedestrians
walking anywhere near those same roads, despite the much greater
likelihood of a pedestrian needing it, based on national data, or based
on Pucher's and others' risk-per-mile data. You don't promote it for >motorists, for people on ladders, stairs, etc, etc. Mentioning that is
not "alarmism." It's referring to readily available data on the
likelihood of serious TBI. What you are doing is implicitly (and perhaps >explicitly) exaggerating the TBI risk of bicycling, pretending it is an >activity that carries extreme risk of serious TBI. You've not given a >rational excuse for your "dangerizing" bicycling.
Regarding costs vs. benefits of bicycle helmets: The only study I
recalled was Hendrie D, Legge M, Rosman D, Kirov C, 1999. An Economic >Evaluation of the Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Western
Australia. It's quite detailed and notes that there's uncertainty in the >estimates, but it says that helmet promotion and laws were very likely
money losers for society, with an estimate range of 2 million dollars
benefit to 10 million dollars loss. I'd forgotten a different paper,
Taylor M, Scuffham P, 2002. New Zealand bicycle helmet law - do the
costs outweigh the benefits?. Injury Prevention 2002;8:317-320 that
found slight benefit for kids, but large negative benefits for adults - >meaning the population spent much more buying helmets than they
apparently saved in medical and other related costs.
You dismissed that as saying you value your helmets. Fine! - at least
for you. You get to assign your own value to anything you choose to
wear. Hot pink riding jersey for $100? Have at it! But when you begin to
make recommendations to others, or debate the value for others, the
standard should be more than your personal value system.
About the data shown in Tom's pedestrian vs. bicyclist fatality history >graph: Of course the scales are different! Pedestrian deaths are
routinely seven times as high as bicyclists. The presentation of data
using different scales in such a situation is absolutely standard, and
no way deceiving. It's a way of showing, comparatively, percentage
changes year by year. What would you prefer, just showing differences in
raw counts? If we did that, the data would look roughly seven times
worse for your argument.
About your assumption that bicycling has been growing and growing, and
that's the reason bike TBI counts have not fallen: I think that's false.
I think cycling in the U.S. has risen and fallen over time. A few years
ago, the LAB had data online showing it trending downward. Covid
famously kicked it upward, but that bump went away. AFAIK there's been
no nationally significant change in bike commuting for decades, although
some cities showed recent jumps from something like 0.5% to 1% - a
"doubling of commuting mode share!!!" if you're claiming victory, or "a >change from negligible to negligible" if you're a skeptic.
About seat belts in cars: FWIW, I think that should be a personal
decision too, just as whether or not to go rock climbing, whether or not
to use a ladder, whether or not to eat meat, whether or not to never
exercise are all personal matters. All those are matters that affect
only the person making the choice. (I'm betting you don't promote
vegetarian or vegan diets as much as you promote bike helmet, but I
could be wrong.)
I'm also aware of some weird inconsistencies in seat belt data. As it >happened, Britain mandated seat belts for drivers before they mandated
them for passengers. In the interim years (drivers belted, passengers
not) driver fatalities did fall, so yes, there was protection. But
passenger fatalities actually rose significantly! Why? It's generally
thought that the drivers, feeling more protected, unconsciously took
greater risks - i.e. "risk compensation." Their passengers paid the price.
Which goes a way toward explaining the lack of long term, whole
population data "proving" that bike helmets save a significant number of >lives. The drop just isn't there, especially compared to pedestrians
(who are at worse risk anyway). You may be positive your helmet saved
you from - whatever - death? Severe TBI? A messy cut on your head? I'm >willing to concede the latter, but _compared to what you would have done >riding without a helmet_, I don't think you can make the two former
claims. First, styrofoam is fragile, and a damaged helmet does _not_
prove an injury was prevented; and second, without a helmet you might
well have been careful enough to avoid the accident in the first place.
You might not have 'risk compensated'.
TLDR? The huge amount of money spent on styrofoam has probably not saved
an equal amount in medical costs, especially since the "dangerizing" of >bicycling has doubtlessly scared some people away from the health
benefits of riding - but also because the benefits predicted by
case-control studies don't appear in national data. If you want to save >health costs, you probably should promote helmets for the much more
common causes of serious TBI.
Helmet wearing should be an individual choice, but the "dangerizing"
hype and sales pitches should stop. Bicycling has never been a major
source of serious TBI compared to other activities.
Bicycling is _not_ unusually dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it
is.
On Thu Apr 3 17:26:01 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/3/2025 12:05 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Apr 3 11:47:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2025 11:31 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Liebermann, no one but Flunky pays the slightest heed to you anymore. >>>>>> Why do you even bother posting?
I strongly disagree. Jeff is one of the most consistently erudite people >>>>> posting here. His posts almost always have value. Even the ones where he >>>>> points out your foolishness, Tom, have value. They save us the trouble >>>>> of doing the same.
I wonder if, as a discipline for the rest of Lent at least, you could >>>>> give up insulting your betters.
Since my answer to his posting was to point out that his claim was that >>>> the face is not part of the head, I am not at all surprised thaty you
consider him erudite. Apparently you don't believe that ANY protection >>>> for the head is any better than your cycling cap. I guess stupid runs in >>>> tribes and you, Liebermann and Flunky all wear the same warpaint.
Tom, your constant stream of insults really does not make your targets
look worse. It only makes you look (even) worse.
Indeed it?s a poor look!
Roger, I agree to the extent that I am responding to people that could not even earn a living for themselves in private industry telling us that I don't know what I'm talking about. You seem like a competent working man and I suggest you stopsupporting idiots because you think that I have started any of this.
That does not make you look very good either.
I said that I updated my Garmin and that it took several minutes and that the operation of the instrument completely changed and you said that I was mistaken.
You were going strictly on the version number which is probably manually changed.
I worked as an EE and senior software engineer for 50 years. I don't know what you do but you should be careful talking about that sort of stuff.
Do you think that it is a poor look because I corrected you?
Or because I find people like Frank and Liebermann who never worked in commercial business almost entirely wrong all of the time?
Liebermann who doesn't know that your face is part of your head? Or Krygowski who claims that his cycling cap is as effective at warding off head injuries as a helmet is? Wear a helmet or not, as you wish but never pretend that a helmet doesn't offerat least some protection. I have published articles on the failings of helmets and was pro helmet only to the end that it did protect you from mild injuries.
What about Flunky who tells us he is an important EE at his company,
so important that he spends every minute of every day on this group. When I was working I had no time for anything else.
Doesn't that tell you how important that guy" is?
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy >>>> and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
reduction in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles
describing increases in cyclist concussions.
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction >>>>> in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu >>>>>>> vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
"Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
On 3/31/2025 4:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
There is no right or wrong regarding Bbicycle helmets. There's only"Nothing can be known. All is mystery. Ommmmm...."
opinions....
...and opinions are subjective by definition.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction >>>>>> in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu >>>>>>>> vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
"Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
On 4/4/2025 4:18 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/2/2025 2:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/1/2025 4:13 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/31/2025 8:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during >>>>>>> which
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me >>>>>>>>>> that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for >>>>>>>>>> bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the >>>>>>>>>> efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data
indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike
helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there >>>>>>>>> are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant
reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in traffic
between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero although "what
counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be appropriate questions here.
You may have missed it in all the chatter but Frank has repeatedly
been shown the following information as well as other _recent_
corroborating studies but has refused to acknowledge them, instead
choosing to state "There is no such nationwide data for bike
helmets, and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And
there are serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies." >>>>
The information below very _clearly_ contradicts all three of those
claims. Instead of arguing the merits, data, and conclusions of
these studies, he instead deflects to rail against marketing
tactics, engages in whataboutism with walking, and builds strawmen
to attack the person (me) presenting the information.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/
"There was a significantly higher crude 30-day mortality in un-
helmeted cyclists 5.6% (4.8%–6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8%
(1.4%–2.2%) (p<0.001)."
"Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in severe
traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%–20.4%) versus 47.6%
(1211, 45.6%–49.5%) (p<0.001), intensive care unit requirement 19.6% >>>> (797, 18.4%–20.8%) versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%–28.9%) (p<0.001) and
neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%–3.1%) versus 8.5% (217,
7.5%– 9.7%) (p<0.001)."
and another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28945822/
"Helmet use was shown to be protective against intracranial injury
in general (OR 0.2, CI 0.07-0.55, p = 0.002). A protective effect
against subdural haematoma was demonstrated (OR 0.14, CI 0.03-0.72,
p = 0.02). Wearing a helmet was also protective against skull
fractures (OR 0.12, CI 0.04-0.39, p<0.0001) but not any other
specific extracranial injuries."
And another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
"179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in
the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce
head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain
injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or
seriously injured cyclists by 34%. "
The other studies previously posted here that prove the
effectiveness of helmets (which Frank also chooses to dismiss with
no rational explanation) are:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-
Finds- More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-
Says-it- Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-
surprise- you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-
jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
Let's see: A "Case-control" study of cyclists presenting to ER. Oh,
and another "case-control" ER study. And what's this? Yet another
"case- control" ER study? And gosh, another "case-control" ER study?
Sure, why not?
OK: Case-control studies are very easy to do, and if they confirm the
accepted truth (that bike helmets are very worthwhile) they are easy
to get published.
I'd be very surprised if someone came up with different findings
_couldn't_ get them study published due to your perceived cultural bias
The message - either implied or specifically stated - is that "since
the people in ER without helmets did worse than the people in ER with
helmets, then everybody should wear a helmet each time they ride a
bike."
ok, how about "since the people in ER without seatbelts did worse than
the people in ER with seatbelts, then everybody should wear a seatbelt
each time they drive a car."
Seatbelt data is taken from ER visits. According to you, that data is
worthless.
The first hidden assumption is that the people in ER are
representative of "everyone who rides a bike." That is obviously not
the case. Only a minuscule percentage of people who have ridden bikes
have ever presented to ER. Almost all bike riders will never bump
their head, at least never beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people
will never ever need a helmet.
ok, how about "The first hidden assumption is that the people in ER
are representative of "everyone who drives a car." That is obviously
not the case. Only a minuscule percentage of people who have driven
cars have ever presented to ER. Almost all drivers will never crash
their car, at least never beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people will
never ever need a seat belt."
Your claim of the assumption that most people in the ER not being
representative of everyone that rides a bike is a red herring. Sure,
the vast majority of people who ride bikes will never need a helmet,
just like the vast majority of people who drive will never need a seat
belt. The issue is - if there comes a time when you do crash, a
helmet/ seatbelt can be extremely beneficial.
Remember that seatbelt detractors fear mongered by claiming the
seatbelts can cause internal injuries or prevent you from getting out
of the car after you crash. Sure there were a few cases of that, just
as there are a few cases where wearing a helmet can create an unsafe
situation - But as you so often chant during RBT gun debates - you
have to weigh benefits vs detriments - the ER data shows helmets as
the clear winner.
The second (hidden?) assumption is that if everybody does begin
wearing a helmet each time they ride a bike, society will somehow
benefit - perhaps by lower medical costs? Perhaps by lives saved? But
one of my main points has been that has not happened.
You have no data to support the claim that there has been no drop in
medical costs, and the ER data clearly shows lives have been saved.
When helmet use rapidly increased in the U.S., in the 80s and 90s,
there was no corresponding drop in bike fatalities. You're going to
love making fun of the source, but the number are the numbers:
https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
That data doesn't take into account the increase in cycling
popularity, a more accurate representation would be # of deaths per
mile ridden. IOW - those are raw numbers, not percentages, and The ER
data contradicts your assertion.
Pedestrian fatalities - far larger in number than cyclist fatalities
- dropped faster, despite the shocking lack of pedestrian helmets.
Also note that there are two different Y scales used, skewing the
trendlines. There's a reason statisticians use percentages - Toms
chart is an illustration of that. Let's se how an actuary would look
at it
Data analysis from more mainstream sources confirms that point.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full?
ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref says, among much else, "The linked
paper by Dennis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.f2674) investigates
the policy question and concludes that the effect of Canadian helmet
legislation on hospital admission for cycling head injuries “seems to
have been minimal.”1 Other ecological studies have come to different
conclusions,2 but the current study has somewhat superior methodology
— controlling for background trends and modelling head injuries as a
proportion of all cycling injuries.
I'm not sure what the motivation was of the people who wrote that
paper, but the study they linked (https://www.bmj.com/content/346/
bmj.f2674) directly contradicts their claim.
"Between 1994 and 2008, 66 716 hospital admissions were for cycling
related injuries in Canada. Between 1994 and 2003, the rate of head
injuries among young people decreased by 54.0% (95% confidence
interval 48.2% to 59.8%) in provinces with helmet legislation compared
with 33.1% (23.3% to 42.9%) in provinces and territories without
legislation. Among adults, the rate of head injuries decreased by
26.0% (16.0% to 36.3%) in provinces with legislation but remained
constant in provinces and territories without legislation. "
Sure it goes no to say "injury rates were already decreasing before
the implementation of legislation and the rate of decline was not
appreciably altered on introduction of legislation.", but they offer
no other data such as the previously mentioned incidents per miles
ridden.
This finding of “no benefit” is superficially hard to reconcile with >>> case-control studies, many of which have shown that people wearing
helmets are less likely to have a head injury.3 Such findings suggest
that, for individuals, helmets confer a benefit. These studies,
however, are vulnerable to many methodological shortcomings. If the
controls are cyclists presenting with other injuries in the emergency
department, then analyses are conditional on having an accident and
therefore assume that wearing a helmet does not change the overall
accident risk...."
I see, so there's some ludicrous assumption that helmets are supposed
to prevent you from crashing? "wearing a helmet does not change the
overall accident risk."....welllllll duuuuhhhhhh.
Where on earth did you ever get the idea that helmets are supposed to
prevent you from crashing?
Again, people showing up at ER are _not_ typical.
Again, that's a red herring.
And while I've given up maintaining my files of helmet studies, there
certainly are case-control studies showing that helmets are not
wonderfully effective. I've previously linked the Crocker paper from
Austin, that found that when controlling for the confounding factor
of blood alcohol, helmets on adults did not display statistically
significant benefit.
Which is another tangent, but it also doesn't state whether the deaths
were from head injuries. Fail.
Here's another case-control paper that claims large benefit, but the
comments (by a correspondent of mine) show less enthusiasm when he
drilled down a bit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/
article/ pii/S1538958824000766
So odds ratio of 0.52 on "head injury." Wow. But my correspondent's
comments:
.......
"I note some specifics where helmeted cyclists are the losers …
Concussion : non helmeted 26.9%, helmeted 31.0% [Read that again, Zen!]
As discussed before - the percentage of concussions is likely to
increase with a helmet wince the helmet can reduce a fatal head
impact. From your link:
"established evidence has reported a reduction in fatal head injury of
65–71% in patients using a helmet (Høye 2018; Olivier and Creighton
2017)."
Facial fracture : non helmeted 5.1%, helmeted 8.0%
Facial lesion : non helmeted 20.0%, helmeted 26.5%
Intracranial hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.7%, helmeted 1.8%
Intracranial hemorrhage, not specified : non helmeted 0.6%, helmeted
0.9%
Subdural hemorrhage : non helmeted 1.1%, helmeted 2.7%
I also note there was suspected alcohol involvement among 20% of non
helmeted and 3% of helmeted."
.....
I can dig up more of that sort of thing, and we can devote the rest
of our lives to this discussion. But the benefits are modest at best,
That's your spin, not bourne out by the data,
and they are comparing only ER patients, who (again) are _not_
perfectly representative of the general population.
More herring, sir?
There is data indicating the helmeted percentage of people who show
up at ER exceeds the helemeted percentage in the general population.
That showed up strongly in the earliest pro-helmet papers, and in
some others afterwards. Here are a couple articles pointing that out
for other activities:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31335753/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/joim.12363 that
says, among much else, "Surprisingly, wearing a helmet was associated
with
significantly greater injury severity including the likelihood of a
concussion." (I've seen similar data regarding bicycling, but I'll
have to dig deeper to find it.)
So again: People presenting to ER are not typical of the total
population. That alone casts doubt on case-control studies.
You've made your point repeatedly, using data and assumptions I find
specious, lacking, and outdated.
IOW - you haven't convinced me.
But let's take a wider view here. What are people trying to do when
they promote bike helmets as being necessary? Or highly valuable? Or
even mandatory?
Give you a chance to survive a potentially fatal or permanently
debilitating head injury. I know, you're not buying it. That's fine.
I'm not going to assume, as Mr. Tricycle Rider does, that those
people are doing it so they can have power over others. (Um, even
though he's apparently wanting that power over parents of kids!) I'm
going to assume they are hoping for some societal good - maybe to
reduce the nation's medical costs? Maybe to reduce general misery?
Maybe they get an unspecific frisson of pleasure out of having "done
some good"? Feel free to comment on why _you_ always counsel people
to wear a helmet every time they ride on a normal road!
In my view, none of those work. The only dollar-vs.-dollar study I've
seen on helmets came out of Australia many years ago, after its
nationwide MHLs came into effect. The helmets were a clear loser.
Costs spent on helmets _greatly_ exceeded any identifiable medical
savings.
I put value into the money I've spent on helmets. They've protected me
from more severe head injuries more that I like to remember.
And IIRC, that didn't even take into account the beneficial effects
of riding a bike. As I've mentioned several times, I know of at least
five studies that determined the benefits of bicycling greatly
outweigh its risks or detriments. Some of those studies specifically
evaluated medical costs - health care dollars saved vs. spent due to
bicycling. The _worst_ result was a 7 to 1 benefit in favor of
bicycling. IOW, if you dissuade people from riding, national medical
costs will rise, not fall.
It doesn't take much to dissuade people from bicycling. America has
been doing it for decades, claiming riding is so dangerous that you
really should not do it unless you wear a really, really weird hat -
or unless you ride only on some very special strip of asphalt, which
is also fear mongering.
If the special, funny looking hat really did confer huge benefit, it
should confer it on non-cyclists who suffer far more brain injuries.
Again, pedestrian and motorist TBIs and fatalities dwarf those of
bicyclists. Even you, a big mileage rider, are statistically more
likely to get serious TBI while in your car. But I doubt very much
that you put on the helmet (that you already own!) when you're
driving. And remember, the most easily identifiable TBI victims are
the ones who are dead. But bicyclists comprise only about 0.6% of
America's TBI fatalities.
Then why ban AR-15s?
TLDR? Case-control claims about wonderful bike helmet benefit have
not panned out in the general population. ER visitors are not the
same as the general population. But if helmets are such a miracle,
why not not spend the same energy promoting them for pedestrians
(including - gasp! - runners, who move fast!), for motorists (yes,
it's been seriously proposed), for people using ladders, people using
stairways, elderly people just walking around their homes, people
playing pickleball (I don't, but I've heard our bike club members'
experiences) etc. etc.
Alarmism duly noted and dismissed as alarmist.
Why "dangerize" bicycling? Bicycling is _not_ very dangerous. I does
us no good to pretend it is.
So don't' wear a helmet. I have seen much information to support that
suggesting helmet use dissuades people from cycling.
I'll continue to wear mine and feel good about it.
Let me start at the bottom of your post: You're welcome to continue
wearing your helmet! I've said many times I'm not trying to convince
people to stop wearing one.
And thank you for charitably saying "So don't wear a helmet." It's nice
that, unlike some, you're not trying to force your choice on others. As Andrew says, kumbaya!
But working my way up your response: You obviously believe passionately
in the protective value of an inch of styrofoam. You have said you
promote its use for riding bicycles on any normal roads.
But you've tacitly admitted that you don't promote it for pedestrians
walking anywhere near those same roads, despite the much greater
likelihood of a pedestrian needing it, based on national data, or based
on Pucher's and others' risk-per-mile data. You don't promote it for motorists, for people on ladders, stairs, etc, etc. Mentioning that is
not "alarmism." It's referring to readily available data on the
likelihood of serious TBI. What you are doing is implicitly (and perhaps explicitly) exaggerating the TBI risk of bicycling, pretending it is an activity that carries extreme risk of serious TBI. You've not given a rational excuse for your "dangerizing" bicycling.
Regarding costs vs. benefits of bicycle helmets: The only study I
recalled was Hendrie D, Legge M, Rosman D, Kirov C, 1999. An Economic Evaluation of the Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Western
Australia. It's quite detailed and notes that there's uncertainty in the estimates, but it says that helmet promotion and laws were very likely
money losers for society, with an estimate range of 2 million dollars
benefit to 10 million dollars loss. I'd forgotten a different paper,
Taylor M, Scuffham P, 2002. New Zealand bicycle helmet law - do the
costs outweigh the benefits?. Injury Prevention 2002;8:317-320 that
found slight benefit for kids, but large negative benefits for adults - meaning the population spent much more buying helmets than they
apparently saved in medical and other related costs.
You dismissed that as saying you value your helmets. Fine! - at least
for you. You get to assign your own value to anything you choose to
wear. Hot pink riding jersey for $100? Have at it! But when you begin to
make recommendations to others, or debate the value for others, the
standard should be more than your personal value system.
About the data shown in Tom's pedestrian vs. bicyclist fatality history graph: Of course the scales are different! Pedestrian deaths are
routinely seven times as high as bicyclists. The presentation of data
using different scales in such a situation is absolutely standard, and
no way deceiving. It's a way of showing, comparatively, percentage
changes year by year. What would you prefer, just showing differences in
raw counts? If we did that, the data would look roughly seven times
worse for your argument.
About your assumption that bicycling has been growing and growing, and
that's the reason bike TBI counts have not fallen: I think that's false.
I think cycling in the U.S. has risen and fallen over time. A few years
ago, the LAB had data online showing it trending downward. Covid
famously kicked it upward, but that bump went away. AFAIK there's been
no nationally significant change in bike commuting for decades, although
some cities showed recent jumps from something like 0.5% to 1% - a
"doubling of commuting mode share!!!" if you're claiming victory, or "a change from negligible to negligible" if you're a skeptic.
About seat belts in cars: FWIW, I think that should be a personal
decision too, just as whether or not to go rock climbing, whether or not
to use a ladder, whether or not to eat meat, whether or not to never
exercise are all personal matters. All those are matters that affect
only the person making the choice. (I'm betting you don't promote
vegetarian or vegan diets as much as you promote bike helmet, but I
could be wrong.)
I'm also aware of some weird inconsistencies in seat belt data. As it happened, Britain mandated seat belts for drivers before they mandated
them for passengers. In the interim years (drivers belted, passengers
not) driver fatalities did fall, so yes, there was protection. But
passenger fatalities actually rose significantly! Why? It's generally
thought that the drivers, feeling more protected, unconsciously took
greater risks - i.e. "risk compensation." Their passengers paid the price.
Which goes a way toward explaining the lack of long term, whole
population data "proving" that bike helmets save a significant number of lives. The drop just isn't there, especially compared to pedestrians
(who are at worse risk anyway). You may be positive your helmet saved
you from - whatever - death? Severe TBI? A messy cut on your head? I'm willing to concede the latter, but _compared to what you would have done riding without a helmet_, I don't think you can make the two former
claims. First, styrofoam is fragile, and a damaged helmet does _not_
prove an injury was prevented; and second, without a helmet you might
well have been careful enough to avoid the accident in the first place.
You might not have 'risk compensated'.
TLDR? The huge amount of money spent on styrofoam has probably not saved
an equal amount in medical costs, especially since the "dangerizing" of bicycling has doubtlessly scared some people away from the health
benefits of riding - but also because the benefits predicted by case-
control studies don't appear in national data. If you want to save
health costs, you probably should promote helmets for the much more
common causes of serious TBI.
Helmet wearing should be an individual choice, but the "dangerizing"
hype and sales pitches should stop. Bicycling has never been a major
source of serious TBI compared to other activities.
Bicycling is _not_ unusually dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it
is.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction >>>>>> in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu >>>>>>>> vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
"Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy >>>>> and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu >>>> vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant
reduction in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles
describing increases in cyclist concussions.
I meant any evidence of the net benefits of flu shots.
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
"Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
Roger Merriman
On 4/6/2025 4:55 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above >>>>> "Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the >> NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with >> much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth >> it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at >> a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and >> stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
Roger Merriman
heh heh heh
"Get this jab, not for yourself but rather to protect NHS!"
On 4/5/2025 11:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding
bike helmets.
I just think your standards for proof are different for
bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
Fine. Obviously, my main point in this discussion regards
bike helmets and their promotion.
Regarding your disagreement on flu shots as an analogy: I've
found that in many, many discussions, different people
understand different explanations.
On 4/6/2025 8:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
You keep glossing over "the vast majority of people who ride bikes
will never need a helmet, just like the vast majority of people who
drive will never need a seat belt.
Right. I think seat belts should be a matter of personal choice. And I
have no problem riding in my friend's two historic cars with no seatbelts.
The issue is - if there comes a time when you do crash, a helmet/
seatbelt can be extremely beneficial. "
Likewise, you gloss over the fact that for a person inside a crashing
car, a helmet might be extremely beneficial. And you already own a
helmet, but (I'm betting) choose not to wear it while driving!
FWIW, there are factors in favor of seatbelts that don't apply to
helmets. Number one is their designed and tested effectiveness. That is,
seat belts are tested in realistic crashes of actual cars into concrete barriers at 35 mph, during which tests the seatbelts (and airbags) are required to protect realistic, full-body crash test dummies. Yes, the
tests still aren't perfect - that is, motorists still get injured - but
at least the tests are somewhat realistic.
By contrast, bike helmets are certified with just a 14 mph impact of a
model of decapitated human head, no body attached. The impact is
perfectly straight and linear, despite the long standing knowledge that rotational acceleration of the head is the biggest contributor toward
TBI. It's an _extremely_ unrealistic test.
Also, seatbelts add, I'm sure, far less than 1% to the cost of a car,
and last the life of the car. But for many low income people, the cost
of a bike helmet may exceed the cost of their bike,
and people are still
being told to replace their helmet every three years - or something
similar. And they are fragile enough to be broken by mistake, requiring replacement.
And seatbelts are trivially easy to properly fasten, always available
and impose negligible discomfort.
Bike helmets are fussy to properly
adjust and easy to wear wrong - commonly, tilted back like an Easter
bonnet, exposing the forehead, and with overly loose straps. Many people
find them ugly and uncomfortable (at least, I always have) and a
nuisance to keep track of, take on trips, etc.
You may not perceive those disadvantages. Your bike helmet may be
comfortable for you, you may think it's very stylish, you may have it perfectly adjusted, you certainly have no problem affording it, etc.
Yet even though car occupant TBI totally dwarfs bike TBI, you
(doubtlessly) don't take advantage of its miraculous (hah!) protection
when riding in a car.
Why?
On 4/7/2025 7:35 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/6/2025 3:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2025 8:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
You keep glossing over "the vast majority of people who ride bikes
will never need a helmet, just like the vast majority of people who
drive will never need a seat belt.
Right. I think seat belts should be a matter of personal choice. And I
have no problem riding in my friend's two historic cars with no
seatbelts.
The issue is - if there comes a time when you do crash, a helmet/
seatbelt can be extremely beneficial. "
Likewise, you gloss over the fact that for a person inside a crashing
car, a helmet might be extremely beneficial. And you already own a
helmet, but (I'm betting) choose not to wear it while driving!
Conflation duly noted and dismissed as conflation
You're evading. I'm referring to two very similar situations. One is the >relatively rare event of TBI from a bike crash. The other is the much
more common event of TBI from a car crash. You wear and advise people to
wear helmets in case of the first, but you don't wear the helmet you
already own in case of the second.
Why not?
By contrast, bike helmets are certified with just a 14 mph impact of a
model of decapitated human head, no body attached. The impact is
perfectly straight and linear, despite the long standing knowledge
that rotational acceleration of the head is the biggest contributor
toward TBI. It's an _extremely_ unrealistic test.
Right....
https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html
"We compute concussion risk from measured peak linear acceleration and
rotational velocity for each test."
Try and keep up Frank.
Oh, I've been aware of Virginia Tech's work for many years. Virginia
Tech has concocted a nice little program that generates publications and >publicity. But their test has no legal standing, any more than Consumer >Reports' tests on bath towels.
To be certified for sale in the U.S., in Europe or elsewhere, the >certification test is what I described. Yes, there are other details
(e.g. strength of the straps, etc.) but there is no measurement of
rotational effects. Look it up.
Also, seatbelts add, I'm sure, far less than 1% to the cost of a car,
and last the life of the car. But for many low income people, the cost
of a bike helmet may exceed the cost of their bike,
really?
https://www.walmart.com/ip/24-Huffy-Rock-Creek-Mountain-Bicycle-12-
to-19-Years-Old-18-Speeds-Grey/719506752?classType=VARIANT&athbdg=L1200
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Concord-Adult-Bicycle-Helmet-Sand-
Ages-14/958460226?classType=VARIANT&athbdg=L1103&from=/search
Try and keep up, Frank.
Zen, our bike club used to do an event in which we harvested unclaimed
bikes from police departments, got them running and gave them away to
low income families who could not afford even $20 for a bike. Many
people buy their bikes not at Walmart but at garage sales. And you're
quoting an unusual clearance price for that helmet, not a normal price.
and people are still being told to replace their helmet every three
years - or something similar. And they are fragile enough to be broken
by mistake, requiring replacement.
And seatbelts are trivially easy to properly fasten, always available
and impose negligible discomfort.
...After hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Imagine if that
effort would have been put into bike helmets
Hundreds of millions into seatbelts is probably an exaggeration. Still,
why has society not put hundreds of millions of dollars into development
of bike helmets? What's the justification for spending so much more on >protecting car occupants?
It's easy, Zen. There are something like 35000 to 40000 people killed
inside cars each year. When we hit 1000 bicyclist deaths in a year, it's
a recent record. And most of those bike deaths are caused by impacts
with cars at speeds no bike helmet will ever be able to handle.
40000 vs. 1000. Exaggerating the likelihood of becoming one of those
1000 is the major marketing tactic of helmet promoters. But that
exaggeration has the effect of scaring people away from ever riding,
which puts them at far worse medical risk than riding without a funny
foam cap.
Bike helmets are fussy to properly adjust and easy to wear wrong -
commonly, tilted back like an Easter bonnet, exposing the forehead,
and with overly loose straps. Many people find them ugly and
uncomfortable (at least, I always have) and a nuisance to keep track
of, take on trips, etc.
Got it, so because you don't find them comfortable, no one should wear
bike helmets.
People should get to make their own choice, free of nanny nagging, free
of fear mongering.
You may not perceive those disadvantages. Your bike helmet may be
comfortable for you, you may think it's very stylish, you may have it
perfectly adjusted, you certainly have no problem affording it, etc.
True.
Yet even though car occupant TBI totally dwarfs bike TBI, you
(doubtlessly) don't take advantage of its miraculous (hah!) protection
when riding in a car.
Conflation duly noted and dismissed as conflation
Evasion noted. If you had a logical reason for driving your bike to the
start of a ride while leaving your helmet on the seat instead of
protecting your head, you'd give us that reason.
On 4/7/2025 7:35 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/6/2025 3:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2025 8:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
You keep glossing over "the vast majority of people who
ride bikes will never need a helmet, just like the vast
majority of people who drive will never need a seat belt.
Right. I think seat belts should be a matter of personal
choice. And I have no problem riding in my friend's two
historic cars with no seatbelts.
The issue is - if there comes a time when you do crash,
a helmet/ seatbelt can be extremely beneficial. "
Likewise, you gloss over the fact that for a person
inside a crashing car, a helmet might be extremely
beneficial. And you already own a helmet, but (I'm
betting) choose not to wear it while driving!
Conflation duly noted and dismissed as conflation
You're evading. I'm referring to two very similar
situations. One is the relatively rare event of TBI from a
bike crash. The other is the much more common event of TBI
from a car crash. You wear and advise people to wear helmets
in case of the first, but you don't wear the helmet you
already own in case of the second.
Why not?
By contrast, bike helmets are certified with just a 14
mph impact of a model of decapitated human head, no body
attached. The impact is perfectly straight and linear,
despite the long standing knowledge that rotational
acceleration of the head is the biggest contributor
toward TBI. It's an _extremely_ unrealistic test.
Right....
https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html
"We compute concussion risk from measured peak linear
acceleration and rotational velocity for each test."
Try and keep up Frank.
Oh, I've been aware of Virginia Tech's work for many years.
Virginia Tech has concocted a nice little program that
generates publications and publicity. But their test has no
legal standing, any more than Consumer Reports' tests on
bath towels.
To be certified for sale in the U.S., in Europe or
elsewhere, the certification test is what I described. Yes,
there are other details (e.g. strength of the straps, etc.)
but there is no measurement of rotational effects. Look it up.
Also, seatbelts add, I'm sure, far less than 1% to the
cost of a car, and last the life of the car. But for many
low income people, the cost of a bike helmet may exceed
the cost of their bike,
really?
https://www.walmart.com/ip/24-Huffy-Rock-Creek-Mountain-
Bicycle-12- to-19-Years-Old-18-Speeds-Grey/719506752?
classType=VARIANT&athbdg=L1200
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Concord-Adult-Bicycle-Helmet-
Sand- Ages-14/958460226?
classType=VARIANT&athbdg=L1103&from=/search
Try and keep up, Frank.
Zen, our bike club used to do an event in which we harvested
unclaimed bikes from police departments, got them running
and gave them away to low income families who could not
afford even $20 for a bike. Many people buy their bikes not
at Walmart but at garage sales. And you're quoting an
unusual clearance price for that helmet, not a normal price.
and people are still being told to replace their helmet
every three years - or something similar. And they are
fragile enough to be broken by mistake, requiring
replacement.
And seatbelts are trivially easy to properly fasten,
always available and impose negligible discomfort.
...After hundreds of millions of dollars of investment.
Imagine if that effort would have been put into bike helmets
Hundreds of millions into seatbelts is probably an
exaggeration. Still, why has society not put hundreds of
millions of dollars into development of bike helmets? What's
the justification for spending so much more on protecting
car occupants?
It's easy, Zen. There are something like 35000 to 40000
people killed inside cars each year. When we hit 1000
bicyclist deaths in a year, it's a recent record. And most
of those bike deaths are caused by impacts with cars at
speeds no bike helmet will ever be able to handle.
40000 vs. 1000. Exaggerating the likelihood of becoming one
of those 1000 is the major marketing tactic of helmet
promoters. But that exaggeration has the effect of scaring
people away from ever riding, which puts them at far worse
medical risk than riding without a funny foam cap.
Bike helmets are fussy to properly adjust and easy to
wear wrong - commonly, tilted back like an Easter bonnet,
exposing the forehead, and with overly loose straps. Many
people find them ugly and uncomfortable (at least, I
always have) and a nuisance to keep track of, take on
trips, etc.
Got it, so because you don't find them comfortable, no one
should wear bike helmets.
People should get to make their own choice, free of nanny
nagging, free of fear mongering.
You may not perceive those disadvantages. Your bike
helmet may be comfortable for you, you may think it's
very stylish, you may have it perfectly adjusted, you
certainly have no problem affording it, etc.
True.
Yet even though car occupant TBI totally dwarfs bike TBI,
you (doubtlessly) don't take advantage of its miraculous
(hah!) protection when riding in a car.
Conflation duly noted and dismissed as conflation
Evasion noted. If you had a logical reason for driving your
bike to the start of a ride while leaving your helmet on the
seat instead of protecting your head, you'd give us that
reason.
On 4/5/2025 10:11 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:I meant any evidence of the net benefits of flu shots.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy >>>>>> and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu >>>>> vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant
reduction in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles
describing increases in cyclist concussions.
Benefits are real. In some small percentage of vaccinated
people. Overall about as effective as a bicycle helmet.
On 4/7/2025 7:35 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/6/2025 3:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2025 8:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
You keep glossing over "the vast majority of people who ride bikes
will never need a helmet, just like the vast majority of people who
drive will never need a seat belt.
Right. I think seat belts should be a matter of personal choice. And
I have no problem riding in my friend's two historic cars with no
seatbelts.
The issue is - if there comes a time when you do crash, a helmet/
seatbelt can be extremely beneficial. "
Likewise, you gloss over the fact that for a person inside a crashing
car, a helmet might be extremely beneficial. And you already own a
helmet, but (I'm betting) choose not to wear it while driving!
Conflation duly noted and dismissed as conflation
You're evading. I'm referring to two very similar situations. One is the relatively rare event of TBI from a bike crash. The other is the much
more common event of TBI from a car crash. You wear and advise people to
wear helmets in case of the first, but you don't wear the helmet you
already own in case of the second.
Why not?
By contrast, bike helmets are certified with just a 14 mph impact of
a model of decapitated human head, no body attached. The impact is
perfectly straight and linear, despite the long standing knowledge
that rotational acceleration of the head is the biggest contributor
toward TBI. It's an _extremely_ unrealistic test.
Right....
https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html
"We compute concussion risk from measured peak linear acceleration and
rotational velocity for each test."
Try and keep up Frank.
Oh, I've been aware of Virginia Tech's work for many years. Virginia
Tech has concocted a nice little program that generates publications and publicity. But their test has no legal standing, any more than Consumer Reports' tests on bath towels.
To be certified for sale in the U.S., in Europe or elsewhere, the certification test is what I described. Yes, there are other details
(e.g. strength of the straps, etc.) but there is no measurement of
rotational effects. Look it up.
Also, seatbelts add, I'm sure, far less than 1% to the cost of a car,
and last the life of the car. But for many low income people, the
cost of a bike helmet may exceed the cost of their bike,
really?
https://www.walmart.com/ip/24-Huffy-Rock-Creek-Mountain-Bicycle-12-
to-19-Years-Old-18-Speeds-Grey/719506752?classType=VARIANT&athbdg=L1200
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Concord-Adult-Bicycle-Helmet-Sand-
Ages-14/958460226?classType=VARIANT&athbdg=L1103&from=/search
Try and keep up, Frank.
Zen, our bike club used to do an event in which we harvested unclaimed
bikes from police departments, got them running and gave them away to
low income families who could not afford even $20 for a bike. Many
people buy their bikes not at Walmart but at garage sales. And you're
quoting an unusual clearance price for that helmet, not a normal price.
and people are still being told to replace their helmet every three
years - or something similar. And they are fragile enough to be
broken by mistake, requiring replacement.
And seatbelts are trivially easy to properly fasten, always available
and impose negligible discomfort.
...After hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Imagine if
that effort would have been put into bike helmets
Hundreds of millions into seatbelts is probably an exaggeration. Still,
why has society not put hundreds of millions of dollars into development
of bike helmets? What's the justification for spending so much more on protecting car occupants?
It's easy, Zen. There are something like 35000 to 40000 people killed
inside cars each year. When we hit 1000 bicyclist deaths in a year, it's
a recent record. And most of those bike deaths are caused by impacts
with cars at speeds no bike helmet will ever be able to handle.
40000 vs. 1000. Exaggerating the likelihood of becoming one of those
1000 is the major marketing tactic of helmet promoters.
But that
exaggeration has the effect of scaring people away from ever riding,
which puts them at far worse medical risk than riding without a funny
foam cap.
Bike helmets are fussy to properly adjust and easy to wear wrong -
commonly, tilted back like an Easter bonnet, exposing the forehead,
and with overly loose straps. Many people find them ugly and
uncomfortable (at least, I always have) and a nuisance to keep track
of, take on trips, etc.
Got it, so because you don't find them comfortable, no one should wear
bike helmets.
People should get to make their own choice, free of nanny nagging, free
of fear mongering.
You may not perceive those disadvantages. Your bike helmet may be
comfortable for you, you may think it's very stylish, you may have it
perfectly adjusted, you certainly have no problem affording it, etc.
True.
Yet even though car occupant TBI totally dwarfs bike TBI, you
(doubtlessly) don't take advantage of its miraculous (hah!)
protection when riding in a car.
Conflation duly noted and dismissed as conflation
Evasion noted. If you had a logical reason for driving your bike to the
start of a ride while leaving your helmet on the seat instead of
protecting your head, you'd give us that reason.
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
"Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above >>>>> "Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the >> NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with >> much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth >> it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at >> a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and >> stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects.
Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of
side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
In the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave almost complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This
seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn
out so well.
On 4/7/2025 12:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above >>>>>> "Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data
indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>>
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no
significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to >>>>> them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets. >>>> I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the >>> NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with >>> much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth
it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at
a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and >>> stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of
side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is
a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
How so?
In the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave
almost
complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This
seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn
out so well.
Again, How so?
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 12:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets. >>>>> I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets >>>>> than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above >>>>>>> "Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during >>>>>>> which helmets became normalized and popular. "
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>>>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data >>>>>>>>>>>> indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>>>
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no
significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to >>>>>> them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that >>>>>> neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again, >>>>>> I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging. >>>>>
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the
NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with
much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth
it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at
a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and
stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of
side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is
a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
How so?
Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
Benefiting the medical system, or the government, or other third parties should not figure. I'm sure these things are more complicated than they appear, I write as a simple-minded patient.
In the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave
almost
complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This
seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn
out so well.
Again, How so?
We were told the act was required, or else no one would be able to
afford producing childhood vaccines. Who knows? In the event we got
the opposite, an explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule, and a
perverse incentive to get vaccines approved for all ages. Hence flu
shots for toddlers. A little more liability would be good for the
pharma companies, it might help concentrate their minds on patient
welfare.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above >>>>> "Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which >>>>>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his >>>>>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike >>>>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, >>>>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are >>>>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again,
I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets
than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the >> NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with >> much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth >> it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at >> a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and >> stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects.
Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of
side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
In the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave almost complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This
seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn
out so well.
On 4/7/2025 11:54 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2025 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:[regarding Zen
eschewing the protection of a helmet while riding in his
car:]
You're evading. I'm referring to two very similar
situations. One is the relatively rare event of TBI from
a bike crash. The other is the much more common event of
TBI from a car crash. You wear and advise people to wear
helmets in case of the first, but you don't wear the
helmet you already own in case of the second.
Why not?
The same answer you keep evading - it's the same reason
you want to ban AR-15s
No, Zen, the only way you can stop evading is to actually
answer the question. AR-15s and bike helmets are in no way
similar.
I thing ARs and the like should be much more heavily
controlled for many reasons, one of which is the immense
public expense wasted on defending against them, like by
police forced to wear armor, SWAT team expenses, like by
schools with bulletproof glass, metal detection systems,
armed guards on duty, etc. etc. None of that applies to
bike helmets or the lack of their use.
If your helmet helps in a bike crash, it would help in a car
crash. Your decision and your promotion of helmets is at
best logically inconsistent.
https://copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-
high-risk.html
https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-style/davies-craig-
australian-car-helmet
To be certified for sale in the U.S., in Europe or
elsewhere, the certification test is what I described.
Yes, there are other details (e.g. strength of the
straps, etc.) but there is no measurement of rotational
effects. Look it up.
I'm aware that the CSPC test doesn't include a rotational
componenet, you're acting however as if there is no
consideration in the industry for it at all.
It takes a while for standardized tests to get modified.
That Rotational testing isn't now included in the
certification process doesn't mean it will never be.
The current helmet standard is effectively written into law.
It's never going to be changed, in part because the helmet
manufacturing industry would lobby hard against any changes,
and lawmakers have no motivation to wade into that battle.
There's no consumer demand for better helmets in part
because people tend to think the current styrofoam caps are
miraculously protective.
lol...ok, the full retail price of the helmet is $16 - And
for the record, if someone can't afford a helmet, I have
no problem with them riding without one. As has been
mentioned here already several time, the likely hood they
will need one is rather small.
It's good that if someone can't afford a helmet, you have no
problem with them riding without one. I hope you extend that
same courtesy to me, even though I can easily afford any
helmet on the market.
And I'm glad you recognize that they are likely to be never
needed.
40000 [motorist fatalities] vs. 1000 [bike fataliteis].
Exaggerating the likelihood of becoming one of those 1000
is the major marketing tactic of helmet promoters.
you see it as an exaggeration. I see it as giving an
alternative to those who may be concerned.
But that exaggeration has the effect of scaring people
away from ever riding,
bullshit
In surveys asking why people don't bicycle more, fear is
usually one of the top explanations. People have succumbed
to decades of propaganda.
Bike helmets are fussy to properly adjust and easy to
wear wrong - commonly, tilted back like an Easter
bonnet, exposing the forehead, and with overly loose
straps. Many people find them ugly and uncomfortable
(at least, I always have) and a nuisance to keep track
of, take on trips, etc.
Got it, so because you don't find them comfortable, no
one should wear bike helmets.
As you know, I do a lot of thinking based on advantages vs.
disadvantages. I'm listing just a few of the disadvantages
of helmets. You're a big helmet fan, so you discount those.
Others don't.
But think about this carefully: I'm _not_ saying no on
should wear a helmet. I've never said that. However, there
certainly are plenty of helmet promoters who say no one
should ever ride a bike without wearing a helmet. There are
many places where helmets have been made mandatory by law.
Those two points of view are not really symmetrical.
People should get to make their own choice, free of nanny
nagging, free of fear mongering.
then why do you keep nagging and fear mongering?
Hah! I'm "nagging" by saying people should have free
choice? And by asking for realistic evaluation of data? And
I'm "fear mongering" by saying that bicycling is a low risk
activity?
You've gone through the looking glass, Zen.
If you had a logical reason for driving your bike to the
start of a ride while leaving your helmet on the seat
instead of protecting your head, you'd give us that reason.
I have given that reason several times (it's cleverly
hidden in place sight, even in this message). You just
don't like the answer.
No, you're playing games. If you had a good reason
explaining why you drive without wearing the helmet you have
in the car, you'd have given it explicitly.
On 4/7/2025 11:54 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/7/2025 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:[regarding Zen eschewing
the protection of a helmet while riding in his car:]
You're evading. I'm referring to two very similar situations. One is
the relatively rare event of TBI from a bike crash. The other is the
much more common event of TBI from a car crash. You wear and advise
people to wear helmets in case of the first, but you don't wear the
helmet you already own in case of the second.
Why not?
The same answer you keep evading - it's the same reason you want to
ban AR-15s
No, Zen, the only way you can stop evading is to actually answer the question. AR-15s and bike helmets are in no way similar.
I thing ARs and the like should be much more heavily controlled for many reasons, one of which is the immense public expense wasted on defending against them, like by police forced to wear armor, SWAT team expenses,
like by schools with bulletproof glass, metal detection systems, armed
guards on duty, etc. etc. None of that applies to bike helmets or the
lack of their use.
If your helmet helps in a bike crash, it would help in a car crash. Your decision and your promotion of helmets is at best logically inconsistent.
https://copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high-risk.html
https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-style/davies-craig-australian-car-helmet
To be certified for sale in the U.S., in Europe or elsewhere, the
certification test is what I described. Yes, there are other details
(e.g. strength of the straps, etc.) but there is no measurement of
rotational effects. Look it up.
I'm aware that the CSPC test doesn't include a rotational componenet,
you're acting however as if there is no consideration in the industry
for it at all.
It takes a while for standardized tests to get modified. That
Rotational testing isn't now included in the certification process
doesn't mean it will never be.
The current helmet standard is effectively written into law. It's never
going to be changed, in part because the helmet manufacturing industry
would lobby hard against any changes, and lawmakers have no motivation
to wade into that battle.
There's no consumer demand for better helmets
in part because people tend to think the current styrofoam caps are miraculously protective.
lol...ok, the full retail price of the helmet is $16 - And for the
record, if someone can't afford a helmet, I have no problem with them
riding without one. As has been mentioned here already several time,
the likely hood they will need one is rather small.
It's good that if someone can't afford a helmet, you have no problem
with them riding without one. I hope you extend that same courtesy to
me, even though I can easily afford any helmet on the market.
And I'm glad you recognize that they are likely to be never needed.
40000 [motorist fatalities] vs. 1000 [bike fataliteis]. Exaggerating
the likelihood of becoming one of those 1000 is the major marketing
tactic of helmet promoters.
you see it as an exaggeration. I see it as giving an alternative to
those who may be concerned.
But that exaggeration has the effect of scaring people away from ever
riding,
bullshit
In surveys asking why people don't bicycle more, fear is usually one of
the top explanations. People have succumbed to decades of propaganda.
Bike helmets are fussy to properly adjust and easy to wear wrong -
commonly, tilted back like an Easter bonnet, exposing the forehead,
and with overly loose straps. Many people find them ugly and
uncomfortable (at least, I always have) and a nuisance to keep
track of, take on trips, etc.
Got it, so because you don't find them comfortable, no one should
wear bike helmets.
As you know, I do a lot of thinking based on advantages vs.
disadvantages. I'm listing just a few of the disadvantages of helmets.
You're a big helmet fan, so you discount those. Others don't.
But think about this carefully: I'm _not_ saying no on should wear a
helmet. I've never said that. However, there certainly are plenty of
helmet promoters who say no one should ever ride a bike without wearing
a helmet. There are many places where helmets have been made mandatory
by law.
Those two points of view are not really symmetrical.
People should get to make their own choice, free of nanny nagging,
free of fear mongering.
then why do you keep nagging and fear mongering?
Hah! I'm "nagging" by saying people should have free choice? And by
asking for realistic evaluation of data? And I'm "fear mongering" by
saying that bicycling is a low risk activity?
You've gone through the looking glass, Zen.
If you had a logical reason for driving your bike to the start of a
ride while leaving your helmet on the seat instead of protecting your
head, you'd give us that reason.
I have given that reason several times (it's cleverly hidden in place
sight, even in this message). You just don't like the answer.
No, you're playing games. If you had a good reason explaining why you
drive without wearing the helmet you have in the car, you'd have given
it explicitly.
On 4/8/2025 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
In fairness, the present bicycle helmet standards are not
enforced by any law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bicycle_helmet#History_of_standards
"United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
created its own mandatory standard for all bicycle helmets
sold in the United States, which took effect in March 1999.[1]"
The truth is more probably that the present impact
amelioration levels are clustered around the nexus of
weight, price, vision and effectiveness where some viable
volume of sales will support them.
When the (eventual) CPSC standard was first written, back in
the 1970s, there were immediate criticisms that it was far,
far too weak. (And that was long before the importance of
rotational acceleration was realized.) Many articles
complained that it produced no effective protection against
crashes with cars, which have always been the main cause of
bicyclist deaths.
The defense by the standard writers was "This is the best we
can practically do." IOW, anything more protective would be
to large, too heavy, too unventilated to convince people to
wear.
So we're left with helmets that lots of people think are not
too bothersome to wear, but that offer insufficient
protection for most serious crashes.
On 4/8/2025 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
In fairness, the present bicycle helmet standards are not enforced by
any law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#History_of_standards
"United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) created its own >mandatory standard for all bicycle helmets sold in the United States,
which took effect in March 1999.[1]"
The truth is more probably that the present impact amelioration levels
are clustered around the nexus of weight, price, vision and
effectiveness where some viable volume of sales will support them.
When the (eventual) CPSC standard was first written, back in the 1970s,
there were immediate criticisms that it was far, far too weak. (And that
was long before the importance of rotational acceleration was realized.)
Many articles complained that it produced no effective protection
against crashes with cars, which have always been the main cause of
bicyclist deaths.
The defense by the standard writers was "This is the best we can
practically do." IOW, anything more protective would be to large, too
heavy, too unventilated to convince people to wear.
So we're left with helmets that lots of people think are not too
bothersome to wear, but that offer insufficient protection for most
serious crashes.
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the
patient.
Is that written and recognized somewhere, especially in a
way that excludes benefiting others who may catch a disease
from the patient?
It would seem to forbid the ancient and very sound practice
of quarantine.
On 4/8/2025 1:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Since I apparently missed it, why not state it concisely here and now?
If you had a logical reason for driving your bike to the start of a
ride while leaving your helmet on the seat instead of protecting
your head, you'd give us that reason.
I have given that reason several times (it's cleverly hidden in
place sight, even in this message). You just don't like the answer.
No, you're playing games. If you had a good reason explaining why you
drive without wearing the helmet you have in the car, you'd have
given it explicitly.
I did, several times.
On 4/8/2025 3:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2025 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/8/2025 1:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Since I apparently missed it, why not state it concisely here and now?
No, you're playing games. If you had a good reason explaining whyIf you had a logical reason for driving your bike to the start of >>>>>>> a ride while leaving your helmet on the seat instead of
protecting your head, you'd give us that reason.
I have given that reason several times (it's cleverly hidden in
place sight, even in this message). You just don't like the answer. >>>>>
you drive without wearing the helmet you have in the car, you'd
have given it explicitly.
I did, several times.
I've decided the benefits far outweigh the detriments ("if there comes
a time when you do crash, a helmet/seatbelt can be extremely
beneficial.")
That's a rather vague and very general statement, especially with the
very low standard of "can be."
It's vague enough to apply equally well to knee pads, elbow pads, chest protectors, steel toe shoes, hearing protection and probably much more.
It certainly doesn't address why you use that to justify a seatbelt but
not a motoring helmet.
On 4/8/2025 5:37 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/8/2025 3:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2025 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/8/2025 1:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/8/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Since I apparently missed it, why not state it concisely here and now? >>>>>
No, you're playing games. If you had a good reason explaining why >>>>>>> you drive without wearing the helmet you have in the car, you'dIf you had a logical reason for driving your bike to the start >>>>>>>>> of a ride while leaving your helmet on the seat instead of
protecting your head, you'd give us that reason.
I have given that reason several times (it's cleverly hidden in >>>>>>>> place sight, even in this message). You just don't like the answer. >>>>>>>
have given it explicitly.
I did, several times.
I've decided the benefits far outweigh the detriments ("if there
comes a time when you do crash, a helmet/seatbelt can be extremely
beneficial.")
That's a rather vague and very general statement, especially with the
very low standard of "can be."
As noted previously, I answered the question, just not to your
satisfaction, which is irrelevant.
It's vague enough to apply equally well to knee pads, elbow pads,
chest protectors, steel toe shoes, hearing protection and probably
much more.
yup
It certainly doesn't address why you use that to justify a seatbelt
but not a motoring helmet.
You don't see the detriments of trying to drive while wearing a bike
helmet?
Hmm. I guess you'd look funny, but that applied to bicycling too, until
the marketing started working. I suppose if your car gave you less than
1" of headroom it would be a problem.
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
Is that written and recognized somewhere, especially in a way that
excludes benefiting others who may catch a disease from the patient?
It would seem to forbid the ancient and very sound practice of quarantine.
Am 08.04.2025 um 18:51 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the
patient.
Is that written and recognized somewhere, especially in a
way that excludes benefiting others who may catch a
disease from the patient?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath>
Obviously, benefit to others is not "excluded" but must not
must not come at a cost to the person treated (medical
diagnosis is different from medical treatment).
In German law, medical treatment without "informed consent"
counts a Grievous Bodily Harm. "Informed consent" for
purely altruistic interventions (e.g. donate a kidney to
your daughter) must be documented very meticulously.
It would seem to forbid the ancient and very sound
practice of quarantine.
"Vaccination to contain" in the simplest form of an optional
flu shot is typically a "minor benefit" rather than a
"detriment" to the person vaccinated. The containment
aspect mostly comes into the game when health insurances
decide whether and how much the patient has to pay for the
pleasure.
The ancient and sound practice of Quarantaine is typically
imposed and administrated by "Public Health" officials
putting potentially infectuous people out of the public, not
by physicians.
On 4/8/2025 11:51 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Is that written and recognized somewhere, especially in a way that
Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
excludes benefiting others who may catch a disease from the patient?
It would seem to forbid the ancient and very sound practice of
quarantine.
Historically, quarantine is civil procedure not medical assistance.
Which is not to say anything for or against quarantine (worked for
Venice!) but rather which field* governs.
I'm with Mr Shouman on this. That agrees with the old physicians'
code* before it was bowdlerized:
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0252
* no one would ever say of government, 'first, do no harm'.
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 12:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets. >>>>>> I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets >>>>>> than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above >>>>>>>> "Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during >>>>>>>> which helmets became normalized and popular. "
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:helmets became normalized and popular. There is no
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis? >>>>>>>>>>> Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time >>>>>>>>>>> during which
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data >>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>>>>
significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to >>>>>>> them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that >>>>>>> neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again, >>>>>>> I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to
challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging. >>>>>>
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the
NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with
much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth
it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at
a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and
stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of
side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is
a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
How so?
Benefiting the medical system, or the government, or other third parties
should not figure. I'm sure these things are more complicated than they
appear, I write as a simple-minded patient.
That's a cynical opinion on your part. The medical establishment would
tell you the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the detriments,
hence "A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of side
effects versus the benefit for an individual patient" has been
satisfied.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
We were told the act was required, or else no one would be able toIn the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave
almost
complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This
seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn >>>> out so well.
Again, How so?
afford producing childhood vaccines. Who knows? In the event we got
the opposite, an explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule, and a
perverse incentive to get vaccines approved for all ages. Hence flu
shots for toddlers. A little more liability would be good for the
pharma companies, it might help concentrate their minds on patient
welfare.
and yet:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186409/cases-of-measles-in-the-us-since-1950/
Followed by:
https://apnews.com/article/measles-outbreak-texas-new-mexico-vaccine-rfk-d5444b3397ac7c4034e63becc219aa33
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:27:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since the
early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure aryan blood
lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived on
in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by the word
"globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise to power of
the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers as well.
Don't all U.S. States require vaccination or inoculation before a
child is allowed to attend school?
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 12:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects. >>>>> Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets. >>>>>>> I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets >>>>>>> than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above >>>>>>>>> "Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during >>>>>>>>> which helmets became normalized and popular. "
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:helmets became normalized and popular. There is no
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis? >>>>>>>>>>>> Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time >>>>>>>>>>>> during which
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing >>>>>>>>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange >>>>>>>>>>> that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in >>>>>>>>>> traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to >>>>>>>> them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that >>>>>>>> neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again, >>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to >>>>>>>> challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging. >>>>>>>
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the
NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with
much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth
it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at
a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and
stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of >>>>> side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is >>>>> a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
How so?
Benefiting the medical system, or the government, or other third parties >>> should not figure. I'm sure these things are more complicated than they >>> appear, I write as a simple-minded patient.
That's a cynical opinion on your part. The medical establishment would
tell you the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the detriments,
hence "A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of side
effects versus the benefit for an individual patient" has been
satisfied.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
We were told the act was required, or else no one would be able toIn the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave
almost
complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This
seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn >>>>> out so well.
Again, How so?
afford producing childhood vaccines. Who knows? In the event we got
the opposite, an explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule, and a
perverse incentive to get vaccines approved for all ages. Hence flu
shots for toddlers. A little more liability would be good for the
pharma companies, it might help concentrate their minds on patient
welfare.
and yet:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186409/cases-of-measles-in-the-us-since-1950/
Followed by:
https://apnews.com/article/measles-outbreak-texas-new-mexico-vaccine-rfk-d5444b3397ac7c4034e63becc219aa33
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion.
I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types.
Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
I still haven't heard any justification for flu shots for toddlers.
Judging from Mr. Merriman's posts that's not the usual practice in the
UK.
I don't think it's considered best practice anywhere but the US.
That is one of the reasons the anti-vax movement has gained traction.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:24:46 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 11:15 schrieb John B.:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:27:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took >>>>> the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has spread >>>>> more widely?
The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since the
early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure aryan blood >>>> lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived on >>>> in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by the word >>>> "globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise to power of
the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers as well.
Don't all U.S. States require vaccination or inoculation before a
child is allowed to attend school?
The requirement seems to be for public schools, leaving Church schools
either uncovered or covered but unenforced. By home-schooling, parents
can avoid the problem altogether.
<https://churchleaders.com/news/507626-pastor-landon-schott-celebrating-low-vax-rates-measles.html>
Well, General George Washington requited his solders to be to be
inoculated (I think I have the correct term) in 1777, and school kids
have been vaccinated or inoculated for years, Massachusetts required
school children to be inoculated as early as 1855 and by 1900 some 13
other stated required vaccination.
In short, vaccination or inoculation has a successfully history of
well over 200 years in the U.S. and now it's no good?
On 4/14/2025 8:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 12:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects. >>>>>> Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets. >>>>>>>> I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets >>>>>>>> than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above >>>>>>>>>> "Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during >>>>>>>>>> which helmets became normalized and popular. "
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:helmets became normalized and popular. There is no
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time >>>>>>>>>>>>> during which
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in >>>>>>>>>>> traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero >>>>>>>>>>> although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to >>>>>>>>> them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that >>>>>>>>> neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again, >>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to >>>>>>>>> challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging. >>>>>>>>
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the
NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with
much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it�s worth
it.
NHS doesn�t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at
a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and
stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of >>>>>> side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is >>>>>> a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
How so?
Benefiting the medical system, or the government, or other third parties >>>> should not figure. I'm sure these things are more complicated than they >>>> appear, I write as a simple-minded patient.
That's a cynical opinion on your part. The medical establishment would
tell you the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the detriments,
hence "A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of side
effects versus the benefit for an individual patient" has been
satisfied.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
We were told the act was required, or else no one would be able toIn the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave
almost
complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This >>>>>> seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn >>>>>> out so well.
Again, How so?
afford producing childhood vaccines. Who knows? In the event we got
the opposite, an explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule, and a
perverse incentive to get vaccines approved for all ages. Hence flu
shots for toddlers. A little more liability would be good for the
pharma companies, it might help concentrate their minds on patient
welfare.
and yet:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186409/cases-of-measles-in-the-us-since-1950/
Followed by:
https://apnews.com/article/measles-outbreak-texas-new-mexico-vaccine-rfk-d5444b3397ac7c4034e63becc219aa33
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion.
And they've done a wonderful job of spreading the disease outside their >community - "my irrational religious preference trumps your personal >well-being"
I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
nor am I, but I don't have much empathy for the parents of a dead child
when the tools to prevent the tragedy were at their disposal. No matter,
I'm sure they do a wonderful job consoling themselves with some "god's
will" bullshit.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types.
Let me guess, you saw one wealthy over-privileged anti-vax activist
ranting in the media and assumed the anti-vax movement was exclusive to
that demographic.
Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
because half the population is below average and will buy into the
ranting of a wealthy over-privileged loud-mouth.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
I still haven't heard any justification for flu shots for toddlers.
I think you left something off that sentence: "...to my satisfaction."
Judging from Mr. Merriman's posts that's not the usual practice in the
UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-at-risk-children-aged-6-months-to-11-years/covid-19-a-guide-for-parents-of-children-6-months-to-11-years-of-age-at-high-risk
"Eligible children and young people who are aged 6 months to 11 years
should have the COVID-19 vaccinations."
I don't think it's considered best practice anywhere but the US.
That's what happens when you listen to hysterical right-wing media
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/questions-and-answers-covid-19-vaccination-eu_en#vaccination
"...the use of the vaccine for children is effective and safe.
Furthermore, scientific evidence demonstrates that children may also get >infected and transmit the virus, and vaccination is a good way to
protect children."
Then there's childhood vaccinations in general:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11598722/#vaccines-12-01296-t001
Lists the mandatory childhood vaccine policies for EU member countries.
That is one of the reasons the anti-vax movement has gained traction.
Because of the rise of hysterical right-wing media.
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said
otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never
regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are
among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in
favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose
it has spread
more widely?
The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis
since the early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison
our pure aryan blood lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times
have lived on in the alt-right movement, just replacing the
word "Jewish" by the word "globalist". I am absolutely not
surprised that the rise to power of the Alt-Right has given
popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers as well.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:27:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since the
early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure aryan blood
lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived on
in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by the word
"globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise to power of
the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers as well.
Don't all U.S. States require vaccination or inoculation before a
child is allowed to attend school?
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 07:38:34 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/14/2025 8:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 12:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects. >>>>>>> Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>helmets became normalized and popular. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant reduction
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> during which
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in >>>>>>>>>>>> traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero >>>>>>>>>>>> although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
"Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during >>>>>>>>>>> which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that >>>>>>>>>> neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again, >>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these >>>>>>>>>> discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to >>>>>>>>>> challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging. >>>>>>>>>
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets >>>>>>>>> than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the strain on the
NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their vaccines with
much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate it’s worth
it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so it works at
a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners the curve and
stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of >>>>>>> side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is >>>>>>> a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
How so?
Benefiting the medical system, or the government, or other third parties >>>>> should not figure. I'm sure these things are more complicated than they >>>>> appear, I write as a simple-minded patient.
That's a cynical opinion on your part. The medical establishment would >>>> tell you the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the detriments,
hence "A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of side
effects versus the benefit for an individual patient" has been
satisfied.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
We were told the act was required, or else no one would be able toIn the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave >>>>>>> almost
complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This >>>>>>> seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn >>>>>>> out so well.
Again, How so?
afford producing childhood vaccines. Who knows? In the event we got >>>>> the opposite, an explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule, and a
perverse incentive to get vaccines approved for all ages. Hence flu >>>>> shots for toddlers. A little more liability would be good for the
pharma companies, it might help concentrate their minds on patient
welfare.
and yet:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186409/cases-of-measles-in-the-us-since-1950/
Followed by:
https://apnews.com/article/measles-outbreak-texas-new-mexico-vaccine-rfk-d5444b3397ac7c4034e63becc219aa33
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion.
And they've done a wonderful job of spreading the disease outside their
community - "my irrational religious preference trumps your personal
well-being"
I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
nor am I, but I don't have much empathy for the parents of a dead child
when the tools to prevent the tragedy were at their disposal. No matter,
I'm sure they do a wonderful job consoling themselves with some "god's
will" bullshit.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types.
Let me guess, you saw one wealthy over-privileged anti-vax activist
ranting in the media and assumed the anti-vax movement was exclusive to
that demographic.
Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
because half the population is below average and will buy into the
ranting of a wealthy over-privileged loud-mouth.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
I still haven't heard any justification for flu shots for toddlers.
I think you left something off that sentence: "...to my satisfaction."
Judging from Mr. Merriman's posts that's not the usual practice in the
UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-at-risk-children-aged-6-months-to-11-years/covid-19-a-guide-for-parents-of-children-6-months-to-11-years-of-age-at-high-risk
"Eligible children and young people who are aged 6 months to 11 years
should have the COVID-19 vaccinations."
I don't think it's considered best practice anywhere but the US.
That's what happens when you listen to hysterical right-wing media
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/questions-and-answers-covid-19-vaccination-eu_en#vaccination
"...the use of the vaccine for children is effective and safe.
Furthermore, scientific evidence demonstrates that children may also get
infected and transmit the virus, and vaccination is a good way to
protect children."
Then there's childhood vaccinations in general:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11598722/#vaccines-12-01296-t001
Lists the mandatory childhood vaccine policies for EU member countries.
That is one of the reasons the anti-vax movement has gained traction.
Because of the rise of hysterical right-wing media.
My 3 kids were born while was in the Air Force and in am A.F. Hospital
at no cost to me. The Air Force policy as that you must accept the
treatment that the doctor proscribed and my kids started getting shots
befor they could walk well.
As an aside you weren't forced to send your wife and kids to the Air
Force hospital you were free to take them to any clinic or hospital of
your choice..... at your cost.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 07:40:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/15/2025 6:34 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:24:46 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 11:15 schrieb John B.:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:27:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took >>>>>>> the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I >>>>>>> believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among >>>>>>> Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of >>>>>>> trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has spread >>>>>>> more widely?
The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since the >>>>>> early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure aryan blood >>>>>> lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived on >>>>>> in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by the word >>>>>> "globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise to power of >>>>>> the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers as well.
Don't all U.S. States require vaccination or inoculation before a
child is allowed to attend school?
The requirement seems to be for public schools, leaving Church schools >>>> either uncovered or covered but unenforced. By home-schooling, parents >>>> can avoid the problem altogether.
<https://churchleaders.com/news/507626-pastor-landon-schott-celebrating-low-vax-rates-measles.html>
Well, General George Washington requited his solders to be to be
inoculated (I think I have the correct term) in 1777, and school kids
have been vaccinated or inoculated for years, Massachusetts required
school children to be inoculated as early as 1855 and by 1900 some 13
other stated required vaccination.
In short, vaccination or inoculation has a successfully history of
well over 200 years in the U.S. and now it's no good?
You haven't been keeping up John, It's all a grand conspiracy for mind >>control by the Illuminati.
Yup, livening here with the totally free medical care has spoiled me.
Being a foreigner I don't have access to the citizen's free medical
service but when the translate from free to Foreigner it's still
cheap. A visit to a doctor is about $2.00 and when you add medicine
and any lab work it is still quite reasonable. Example: I have eye >problems(old age) and to see the eye doctor and eye medicine, 2 types
- 1 month supply, about $30.00
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:58:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:44:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 07:40:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On 4/15/2025 6:34 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:24:46 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 11:15 schrieb John B.:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:27:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:Don't all U.S. States require vaccination or inoculation before a >>>>>>> child is allowed to attend school?
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I >>>>>>>>> believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among >>>>>>>>> Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of >>>>>>>>> trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since the >>>>>>>> early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure aryan blood
lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived on >>>>>>>> in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by the word
"globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise to power of >>>>>>>> the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers as well. >>>>>>>
The requirement seems to be for public schools, leaving Church schools >>>>>> either uncovered or covered but unenforced. By home-schooling, parents >>>>>> can avoid the problem altogether.
<https://churchleaders.com/news/507626-pastor-landon-schott-celebrating-low-vax-rates-measles.html>
Well, General George Washington requited his solders to be to be
inoculated (I think I have the correct term) in 1777, and school kids >>>>> have been vaccinated or inoculated for years, Massachusetts required >>>>> school children to be inoculated as early as 1855 and by 1900 some 13 >>>>> other stated required vaccination.
In short, vaccination or inoculation has a successfully history of
well over 200 years in the U.S. and now it's no good?
You haven't been keeping up John, It's all a grand conspiracy for mind >>>>control by the Illuminati.
Yup, livening here with the totally free medical care has spoiled me.
Being a foreigner I don't have access to the citizen's free medical >>>service but when the translate from free to Foreigner it's still
cheap. A visit to a doctor is about $2.00 and when you add medicine
and any lab work it is still quite reasonable. Example: I have eye >>>problems(old age) and to see the eye doctor and eye medicine, 2 types
- 1 month supply, about $30.00
YOu must know that nothing is free. It's also true that when your
health care is funded and controlled by the same people who make and >>enforce the laws, those people, the government, have complete control
over your lifestyle.
Of course they do.
But, don't you remember Vietnam when all the brave young Americans
ran away to Canada to avoid being a soldier?
So, you don't like it in the U.S.just runaway to somewhere you like
better.
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
On 4/15/2025 8:02 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
Junior says, "do what the government tells you to do and shut up."
"I'm going to do absolutely everything experts recommend without
thinking" may not be very smart.
"I'm going to do absolutely nothing experts recommend because I'm a
macho independent man" is far less smart.
"I'm going to decide based on my own ignorant gut feelings and maybe
what I hear on Fox News " is delusionary idiocy.
On 4/15/2025 8:02 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"I'm going to do absolutely everything experts recommend without
Junior says, "do what the government tells you to do and shut up."
thinking" may not be very smart.
"I'm going to do absolutely nothing experts recommend because I'm a
macho independent man" is far less smart.
"I'm going to decide based on my own ignorant gut feelings and maybe
what I hear on Fox News " is delusionary idiocy.
On 4/15/2025 1:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:02 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
Junior says, "do what the government tells you to do and shut up."
The dumbass runs yet more ignorant diarrhea from his piehole
"I'm going to do absolutely everything experts recommend without
thinking" may not be very smart.
"I'm going to do absolutely nothing experts recommend because I'm a
macho independent man" is far less smart.
"I'm going to decide based on my own ignorant gut feelings and maybe
what I hear on Fox News " is delusionary idiocy.
It's funny seeing him proudly extol his willful ignorance in public.
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/15/2025 1:46 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Note dates of these items
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18787
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.21487
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:50:57 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 1:46 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Note dates of these items
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18787
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.21487
"Editors’ note, March 2020 We are aware that this story is being used
as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus
causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is
true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of
the coronavirus."
What scientists believed that then? What scientists believe that
today?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/15/2025 3:24 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:50:57 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 1:46 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Note dates of these items
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18787
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.21487
"Editors� note, March 2020 We are aware that this story is being used
as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus
causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is
true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of
the coronavirus."
What scientists believed that then? What scientists believe that
today?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
OK, so either the original report is wrong or the editor's
note five years later is wrong. You decide.
On 4/15/2025 3:27 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I
took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has
spread
more widely?
the early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure
aryan blood lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived
on in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by
the word "globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise
to power of the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers
as well.
Maybe in Germany, I truly don't know.
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class suburban
mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft left. (as with any
social phenomenon there are of course many flavors of opinion and
politics) It was unusual before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after that.
Regarding anti-Semitism, one of the notable groups here resistant to vaccination generally are Hasidim.
https://forward.com/news/417390/measles-is-hitting-ultra-orthodox-communities-why-arent-they-vaccinating/
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/15/2025 3:27 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I
took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has
spread
more widely?
the early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure
aryan blood lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived
on in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by
the word "globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise
to power of the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers
as well.
Maybe in Germany, I truly don't know.
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class suburban
mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft left. (as with any
social phenomenon there are of course many flavors of opinion and
politics) It was unusual before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after that.
Regarding anti-Semitism, one of the notable groups here resistant to
vaccination generally are Hasidim.
https://forward.com/news/417390/measles-is-hitting-ultra-orthodox-communities-why-arent-they-vaccinating/
This agrees with my US-centric impressions. Regarding Nazi anti-vax feelings, I understand Hitler was a vegetarian. Maybe all vegetarians
are secretly Nazis.
On 4/14/2025 8:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 12:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects. >>>>>> Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets. >>>>>>>> I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets >>>>>>>> than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above >>>>>>>>>> "Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during >>>>>>>>>> which helmets became normalized and popular. "
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:helmets became normalized and popular. There is no
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time >>>>>>>>>>>>> during which
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent
benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in >>>>>>>>>>> traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero >>>>>>>>>>> although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to >>>>>>>>> them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that >>>>>>>>> neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again, >>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these
discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to >>>>>>>>> challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging. >>>>>>>>
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the
strain on the
NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their
vaccines with
much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate
it’s worth
it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so >>>>>>> it works at
a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners
the curve and
stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of >>>>>> side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is >>>>>> a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
How so?
Benefiting the medical system, or the government, or other third parties >>>> should not figure. I'm sure these things are more complicated than they >>>> appear, I write as a simple-minded patient.
That's a cynical opinion on your part. The medical establishment would
tell you the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the detriments,
hence "A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of side
effects versus the benefit for an individual patient" has been
satisfied.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
We were told the act was required, or else no one would be able toIn the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave
almost
complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This >>>>>> seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn >>>>>> out so well.
Again, How so?
afford producing childhood vaccines. Who knows? In the event we got
the opposite, an explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule, and a
perverse incentive to get vaccines approved for all ages. Hence flu
shots for toddlers. A little more liability would be good for the
pharma companies, it might help concentrate their minds on patient
welfare.
and yet:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186409/cases-of-measles-in-the-us-since-1950/
Followed by:
https://apnews.com/article/measles-outbreak-texas-new-mexico-vaccine-rfk-d5444b3397ac7c4034e63becc219aa33
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion.
And they've done a wonderful job of spreading the disease outside
their community - "my irrational religious preference trumps your
personal well-being"
I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
nor am I, but I don't have much empathy for the parents of a dead
child when the tools to prevent the tragedy were at their disposal. No matter, I'm sure they do a wonderful job consoling themselves with
some "god's will" bullshit.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types.
Let me guess, you saw one wealthy over-privileged anti-vax activist
ranting in the media and assumed the anti-vax movement was exclusive
to that demographic.
Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
because half the population is below average and will buy into the
ranting of a wealthy over-privileged loud-mouth.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besidesI still haven't heard any justification for flu shots for toddlers.
conspiracy theories to support your position.
I think you left something off that sentence: "...to my satisfaction."
Judging from Mr. Merriman's posts that's not the usual practice in the
UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-at-risk-children-aged-6-months-to-11-years/covid-19-a-guide-for-parents-of-children-6-months-to-11-years-of-age-at-high-risk
"Eligible children and young people who are aged 6 months to 11 years
should have the COVID-19 vaccinations."
I don't think it's considered best practice anywhere but the US.
That's what happens when you listen to hysterical right-wing media
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/questions-and-answers-covid-19-vaccination-eu_en#vaccination
"...the use of the vaccine for children is effective and
safe. Furthermore, scientific evidence demonstrates that children may
also get infected and transmit the virus, and vaccination is a good
way to protect children."
Then there's childhood vaccinations in general:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11598722/#vaccines-12-01296-t001
Lists the mandatory childhood vaccine policies for EU member countries.
That is one of the reasons the anti-vax movement has gained traction.
Because of the rise of hysterical right-wing media.
On 4/15/2025 2:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:23:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:02 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"I'm going to do absolutely everything experts recommend without
Junior says, "do what the government tells you to do and shut up."
thinking" may not be very smart.
"I'm going to do absolutely nothing experts recommend because I'm a
macho independent man" is far less smart.
"I'm going to decide based on my own ignorant gut feelings and maybe
what I hear on Fox News " is delusionary idiocy.
Anyone can call themselves an expert, even wussies like you,
krygowski.
"there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed,
know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling."
--Frank Krygoski
:-) And based on your past spewings, if I showed you references,
qualifying test results, curriculum work, qualifications,
certifications, etc. you'd accuse me of "bragging."
Due to your deep and cherished ignorance, you probably don't know that
there are national programs evaluating relevant knowledge and skills.
But that's fine. Hold on to your delusions of adequacy.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:10:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 2:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:23:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:02 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"I'm going to do absolutely everything experts recommend without
Junior says, "do what the government tells you to do and shut up."
thinking" may not be very smart.
"I'm going to do absolutely nothing experts recommend because I'm a
macho independent man" is far less smart.
"I'm going to decide based on my own ignorant gut feelings and maybe
what I hear on Fox News " is delusionary idiocy.
Anyone can call themselves an expert, even wussies like you,
krygowski.
"there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed,
know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling."
--Frank Krygoski
:-) And based on your past spewings, if I showed you references, >>qualifying test results, curriculum work, qualifications,
certifications, etc. you'd accuse me of "bragging."
No, but I'd accuse you being a gullible rube.
Due to your deep and cherished ignorance, you probably don't know that >>there are national programs evaluating relevant knowledge and skills.
But that's fine. Hold on to your delusions of adequacy.
...and who funds those outfits, you gullible rube?
I know.. It doesn't matter to you as long as they support your
opinions...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:26:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:10:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 2:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:23:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:02 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
"I'm going to do absolutely everything experts recommend without
Junior says, "do what the government tells you to do and shut up."
thinking" may not be very smart.
"I'm going to do absolutely nothing experts recommend because I'm a
macho independent man" is far less smart.
"I'm going to decide based on my own ignorant gut feelings and maybe >>>>> what I hear on Fox News " is delusionary idiocy.
Anyone can call themselves an expert, even wussies like you,
krygowski.
"there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed,
know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling."
--Frank Krygoski
:-) And based on your past spewings, if I showed you references, >>>qualifying test results, curriculum work, qualifications,
certifications, etc. you'd accuse me of "bragging."
No, but I'd accuse you being a gullible rube.
Due to your deep and cherished ignorance, you probably don't know that >>>there are national programs evaluating relevant knowledge and skills.
But that's fine. Hold on to your delusions of adequacy.
...and who funds those outfits, you gullible rube?
I know.. It doesn't matter to you as long as they support your
opinions...
Oh wait. I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to support the
people who tell you what to sau... but no, you were going to try to
back up your brags... so no, in that case I'd say, "go ahead... give
it your best shot."
But then I'd also say, "paperwork is nothing but paperwork."
Fact is, there's not really all that much to know about bicycling.
Many ten years olds know all they need to know...
On 4/15/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:45:31 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:26:59 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote...
Three snarking responses to my one post in less than 30 minutes!
No obsession there at all! /s :-)
On 4/15/2025 4:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/15/2025 3:27 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I
took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of >>>>> trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has
spread
more widely?
the early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure
aryan blood lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived
on in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by
the word "globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise
to power of the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers
as well.
Maybe in Germany, I truly don't know.
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class suburban
mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft left. (as with any
social phenomenon there are of course many flavors of opinion and
politics) It was unusual before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after that.
Regarding anti-Semitism, one of the notable groups here resistant to
vaccination generally are Hasidim.
https://forward.com/news/417390/measles-is-hitting-ultra-orthodox-communities-why-arent-they-vaccinating/
This agrees with my US-centric impressions. Regarding Nazi anti-vax
feelings, I understand Hitler was a vegetarian. Maybe all vegetarians
are secretly Nazis.
A vegetarian nonsmoking teetotaler I might well add.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:58:48 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 23:37:34 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:58:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:44:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 07:40:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:
On 4/15/2025 6:34 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:24:46 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 11:15 schrieb John B.:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:27:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:Don't all U.S. States require vaccination or inoculation before a >>>>>>>>> child is allowed to attend school?
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I >>>>>>>>>>> believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among >>>>>>>>>>> Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of >>>>>>>>>>> trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy, >>>>>>>>>>> overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since the
early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure aryan blood
lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived on
in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by the word
"globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise to power of
the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers as well. >>>>>>>>>
The requirement seems to be for public schools, leaving Church schools >>>>>>>> either uncovered or covered but unenforced. By home-schooling, parents
can avoid the problem altogether.
<https://churchleaders.com/news/507626-pastor-landon-schott-celebrating-low-vax-rates-measles.html>
Well, General George Washington requited his solders to be to be >>>>>>> inoculated (I think I have the correct term) in 1777, and school kids >>>>>>> have been vaccinated or inoculated for years, Massachusetts required >>>>>>> school children to be inoculated as early as 1855 and by 1900 some 13 >>>>>>> other stated required vaccination.
In short, vaccination or inoculation has a successfully history of >>>>>>> well over 200 years in the U.S. and now it's no good?
You haven't been keeping up John, It's all a grand conspiracy for mind >>>>>>control by the Illuminati.
Yup, livening here with the totally free medical care has spoiled me. >>>>>
Being a foreigner I don't have access to the citizen's free medical >>>>>service but when the translate from free to Foreigner it's still >>>>>cheap. A visit to a doctor is about $2.00 and when you add medicine >>>>>and any lab work it is still quite reasonable. Example: I have eye >>>>>problems(old age) and to see the eye doctor and eye medicine, 2 types >>>>>- 1 month supply, about $30.00
YOu must know that nothing is free. It's also true that when your >>>>health care is funded and controlled by the same people who make and >>>>enforce the laws, those people, the government, have complete control >>>>over your lifestyle.
Of course they do.
But, don't you remember Vietnam when all the brave young Americans
ran away to Canada to avoid being a soldier?
So, you don't like it in the U.S.just runaway to somewhere you like >>>better.
I think, instead, I'll vote against socialized medicine. They have >>socialized medicine in Canada, you know. We have Canadians coming down
here to get treatment that can't get up there.
It's not socialized medicine as I suspect you perceive.It is simply
free medical service. My Pacemaker was installed when there was one >government hospital in Thailand that provided the service and one
doctor that promoted it and even today there is only one hospital in
my part of the country that provides them.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, floriduh dumbass excreted <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless
and that the six foot rule came out of thin
air.
The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most
vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/14/2025 8:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 9:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/7/2025 12:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Physicians are supposed to treat in order to benefit the patient.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:All vaccines in practice have some rate of detrimental side effects. >>>>>>> Some are minor, like a sore arm. Some are life changing, like
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:As I have said before, I mostly agree with you regarding bike helmets.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>helmets became normalized and popular. There is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant reduction
On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> during which
Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski. It seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent
benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
Year U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
More Data
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet % Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
Data source on that?
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in >>>>>>>>>>>> traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero >>>>>>>>>>>> although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.
"Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during >>>>>>>>>>> which helmets became normalized and popular. "
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that >>>>>>>>>> neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again, >>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these >>>>>>>>>> discussions.
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to >>>>>>>>>> challenge me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging. >>>>>>>>>
I just think your standards for proof are different for bike helmets >>>>>>>>> than they are for your chosen example, flu shots.
To the best of my knowledge they work in that they reduce the
strain on the
NHS during the winter, which is a busy time anyway. Are their
vaccines with
much better rates? Absolutely but even with its 50/60% ish rate >>>>>>>> it’s worth
it.
NHS doesn’t vaccinate anyone but is more targeted, but even so >>>>>>>> it works at
a population level. In that to use a COVID term it flatteners
the curve and
stops hospitals being overwhelmed.
narcolepsy. A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of >>>>>>> side effects versus the benefit for an individual patient.
Deciding to vaccinate one patient because it might benefit others is >>>>>>> a
clear violation of traditional medical ethics.
How so?
Benefiting the medical system, or the government, or other third parties >>>>> should not figure. I'm sure these things are more complicated than they >>>>> appear, I write as a simple-minded patient.
That's a cynical opinion on your part. The medical establishment would >>>> tell you the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the detriments,
hence "A medically ethical decision would balance the chance of side
effects versus the benefit for an individual patient" has been
satisfied.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besides
conspiracy theories to support your position.
We were told the act was required, or else no one would be able toIn the US, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave >>>>>>> almost
complete protection from liability for vaccine injuries to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccines approved for children. This >>>>>>> seemed to me a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it did not turn >>>>>>> out so well.
Again, How so?
afford producing childhood vaccines. Who knows? In the event we got >>>>> the opposite, an explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule, and a
perverse incentive to get vaccines approved for all ages. Hence flu >>>>> shots for toddlers. A little more liability would be good for the
pharma companies, it might help concentrate their minds on patient
welfare.
and yet:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186409/cases-of-measles-in-the-us-since-1950/
Followed by:
https://apnews.com/article/measles-outbreak-texas-new-mexico-vaccine-rfk-d5444b3397ac7c4034e63becc219aa33
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion.
And they've done a wonderful job of spreading the disease outside
their community - "my irrational religious preference trumps your
personal well-being"
I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
nor am I, but I don't have much empathy for the parents of a dead
child when the tools to prevent the tragedy were at their disposal. No
matter, I'm sure they do a wonderful job consoling themselves with
some "god's will" bullshit.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types.
Let me guess, you saw one wealthy over-privileged anti-vax activist
ranting in the media and assumed the anti-vax movement was exclusive
to that demographic.
Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
because half the population is below average and will buy into the
ranting of a wealthy over-privileged loud-mouth.
You're free to disagree, of course, but you have little besidesI still haven't heard any justification for flu shots for toddlers.
conspiracy theories to support your position.
I think you left something off that sentence: "...to my satisfaction."
I think I left off "at all".
Judging from Mr. Merriman's posts that's not the usual practice in the
UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-at-risk-children-aged-6-months-to-11-years/covid-19-a-guide-for-parents-of-children-6-months-to-11-years-of-age-at-high-risk
"Eligible children and young people who are aged 6 months to 11 years
should have the COVID-19 vaccinations."
This is about covid shots,
which you can discuss if you want.
I don't think it's considered best practice anywhere but the US.
That's what happens when you listen to hysterical right-wing media
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/questions-and-answers-covid-19-vaccination-eu_en#vaccination
"...the use of the vaccine for children is effective and
safe. Furthermore, scientific evidence demonstrates that children may
also get infected and transmit the virus, and vaccination is a good
way to protect children."
Once again, covid, not flu.
It's like you don't read what you're
attempting to respond to.
Then there's childhood vaccinations in general:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11598722/#vaccines-12-01296-t001
Lists the mandatory childhood vaccine policies for EU member countries.
Interesting. I didn't see any information on flu shots, except for one sentence including them among vaccinations that save lives. That's
almost evidence that European nations *don't* require flu shots for
toddlers.
That is one of the reasons the anti-vax movement has gained traction.
Because of the rise of hysterical right-wing media.
Except that anti-vax wasn't identified as right-wing until covid,
and
bleating about right-wing media has been going on almost forever.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:14:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:30:20 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:58:48 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 23:37:34 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:58:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:44:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 07:40:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:
On 4/15/2025 6:34 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:24:46 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 11:15 schrieb John B.:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 10:27:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:Don't all U.S. States require vaccination or inoculation before a >>>>>>>>>>> child is allowed to attend school?
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy, >>>>>>>>>>>>> overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has spread
more widely?
The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since the
early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure aryan blood
lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived on
in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by the word
"globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise to power of
the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers as well. >>>>>>>>>>>
The requirement seems to be for public schools, leaving Church schools
either uncovered or covered but unenforced. By home-schooling, parents
can avoid the problem altogether.
<https://churchleaders.com/news/507626-pastor-landon-schott-celebrating-low-vax-rates-measles.html>
Well, General George Washington requited his solders to be to be >>>>>>>>> inoculated (I think I have the correct term) in 1777, and school kids
have been vaccinated or inoculated for years, Massachusetts required >>>>>>>>> school children to be inoculated as early as 1855 and by 1900 some 13 >>>>>>>>> other stated required vaccination.
In short, vaccination or inoculation has a successfully history of >>>>>>>>> well over 200 years in the U.S. and now it's no good?
You haven't been keeping up John, It's all a grand conspiracy for mind >>>>>>>>control by the Illuminati.
Yup, livening here with the totally free medical care has spoiled me. >>>>>>>
Being a foreigner I don't have access to the citizen's free medical >>>>>>>service but when the translate from free to Foreigner it's still >>>>>>>cheap. A visit to a doctor is about $2.00 and when you add medicine >>>>>>>and any lab work it is still quite reasonable. Example: I have eye >>>>>>>problems(old age) and to see the eye doctor and eye medicine, 2 types >>>>>>>- 1 month supply, about $30.00
YOu must know that nothing is free. It's also true that when your >>>>>>health care is funded and controlled by the same people who make and >>>>>>enforce the laws, those people, the government, have complete control >>>>>>over your lifestyle.
Of course they do.
But, don't you remember Vietnam when all the brave young Americans >>>>>ran away to Canada to avoid being a soldier?
So, you don't like it in the U.S.just runaway to somewhere you like >>>>>better.
I think, instead, I'll vote against socialized medicine. They have >>>>socialized medicine in Canada, you know. We have Canadians coming down >>>>here to get treatment that can't get up there.
It's not socialized medicine as I suspect you perceive.It is simply
free medical service. My Pacemaker was installed when there was one >>>government hospital in Thailand that provided the service and one
doctor that promoted it and even today there is only one hospital in
my part of the country that provides them.
Really? The doctors in Canada and in Thailland provide their services
for free out of the goodness of their hearts? What fine folks they
must be.
Oh! Because the government pays the wages it is socialized?
socialized is No Good! Like the U.S. Socialized Army, Air Force, Navy,
Coast Guard? When you were sailing I'm sure that you would refuse help
from the Coast Guard if you were in trouble... "no good socialized
SOB's"
As I said before, pack up your goods and flyaway away just like the
young chaps did to avoid Vietnam.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless and that the six foot rule came out of thin
air. The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most >>vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
On 4/16/2025 5:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, floriduh dumbass excreted
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless
No, he didn't, dumbass. That's you - once again - eagerly swallowing
maga spunk becasue it fits you arrogant and ignorant view point. He said >this:
"From a broad public-health standpoint, at the population level, masks
work at the margins � maybe 10 percent. But for an individual who
religiously wears a mask, a well-fitted KN95 or N95, it�s not at the
margin. It really does work."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/24/magazine/dr-fauci-pandemic.html
It's a nuance that you're unable to understand.
and that the six foot rule came out of thin
air.
again, more eager spunk swallowing.
"like many respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 can also be spread by larger >droplets from coughs or sneezes: these drops tend to fall to the ground >relatively quickly, and six feet of distancing was widely seen by
experts as a reasonable benchmark for avoiding that type of exposure"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/marjorie-taylor-greenes-attacks-of-fauci-over-covids-six-foot-rule-not-based/
Besides, what the fuck to you care? As far as you're concerned, six foot >proximity to other humans is way too close for you anyways.
The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most
vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
that should be 'IMIAAO'
Your ignorant and arrogant opinion
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
No one ever said the vaccine will prevent you from getting covid
dumbass. It reduced the likelyhood and in case of infection reduced the >severity.
floriduh dumbass - making the dumbshine state proud,
I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
Gee john, based on this little exchange between you and the dumbass, is
it any wonder why american tourists consistently present as obese and
stupid?
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless and that the six foot rule came out of thin
air. The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most
vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:47:58 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 4:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless and that the six foot rule came out of thin >>>> air. The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most
vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
I agree it's a popular custom. but the size of viruses and
the pores of masks make that theater at best.
If you can breathe without difficulty and if it's not well
sealed at the edges, you're not blocking viruses.
Regular hospital masks can be and probably are effective for
bacteria but the size scales are radically different for
viruses.
Medical staff don't wear masks to protect themselves from you, rather
its the first basic step in protecting you from them. Of course a mask doesn't stop a microscopic bacteria but it does stop the moisture in
your breath that might carry the bacteria.
A bit sarcastic but all the medical folk that even today wear masks
where appropriate likely have some knowledge of the matter.
During the Covid days I asked a heart specialist whether all this mask wearing had any effect on the usual "wet season" colds and coughs and
he replied,"there weren't any".
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street enforcing
the rules.
On 4/16/2025 7:03 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 05:56:03 -0400, zen cycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 5:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, floriduh dumbass excreted
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other
scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same
rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685 >>>>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless
No, he didn't, dumbass. That's you - once again - eagerly swallowing
maga spunk becasue it fits you arrogant and ignorant view point. He said >>> this:
"From a broad public-health standpoint, at the population level, masks
work at the margins – maybe 10 percent. But for an individual who
religiously wears a mask, a well-fitted KN95 or N95, it’s not at the
margin. It really does work."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/24/magazine/dr-fauci-
pandemic.html
It's a nuance that you're unable to understand.
and that the six foot rule came out of thin
air.
again, more eager spunk swallowing.
"like many respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 can also be spread by larger
droplets from coughs or sneezes: these drops tend to fall to the ground
relatively quickly, and six feet of distancing was widely seen by
experts as a reasonable benchmark for avoiding that type of exposure"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/marjorie-taylor-greenes-
attacks-of-fauci-over-covids-six-foot-rule-not-based/
Besides, what the fuck to you care? As far as you're concerned, six foot >>> proximity to other humans is way too close for you anyways.
The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most
vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
that should be 'IMIAAO'
Your ignorant and arrogant opinion
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
No one ever said the vaccine will prevent you from getting covid
dumbass. It reduced the likelyhood and in case of infection reduced the
severity.
floriduh dumbass - making the dumbshine state proud,
I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
Gee john, based on this little exchange between you and the dumbass, is
it any wonder why american tourists consistently present as obese and
stupid?
"Fauci admits that masks don't work for the public at large but still
absurdly claims masks work on an individual basis,"
https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-mask-admission-backlash-
coronavirus-1824364
He [Fauci] said the 6-foot guideline “sort of just appeared” and
wasn’t based on any data, and that such a study would be difficult to
do.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jun/06/did-fauci-say-he-made-
up-covid-19-rules-on-social/
The same oh-so-proudly-independent guy who repeatedly claims "the media"
is worthless now turns to media in an attempt to salvage his argument.
But his lack of reading comprehension leaves him unaware of his logical failures.
On 4/16/2025 8:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/16/2025 4:25 AM, John B. wrote:
I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
I agree it's a popular custom. but the size of viruses and the pores of
masks make that theater at best.
I disagree. It's apparently a common fallacy that a filter's pore size
must be smaller than particle size for the filter to work, but that's
simply not the case.
Plus, as Fauci noted, with airborne diseases, you're not typically
dealing with a naked virus particle floating in air. You're dealing with
tiny drops of fluid that contain viruses. If those impact a filter
fiber, they stick, even if there's an adjacent pore that's larger than
the diameter of the drop.
If you can breathe without difficulty and if it's not well sealed at the
edges, you're not blocking viruses.
You're not blocking 100% of them. I see this argument as yet another
example of "this measure is not perfect, so let's pretend it's
worthless." You, Andrew, have applied that quasi-logic to many laws in >discussions here.
Regular hospital masks can be and probably are effective for bacteria
but the size scales are radically different for viruses.
Most medically trained people seem to disagree.
On 4/16/2025 7:03 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 05:56:03 -0400, zen cycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 5:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, floriduh dumbass excreted
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless
No, he didn't, dumbass. That's you - once again - eagerly swallowing
maga spunk becasue it fits you arrogant and ignorant view point. He said >>> this:
"From a broad public-health standpoint, at the population level, masks
work at the margins � maybe 10 percent. But for an individual who
religiously wears a mask, a well-fitted KN95 or N95, it�s not at the
margin. It really does work."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/24/magazine/dr-fauci-pandemic.html
It's a nuance that you're unable to understand.
and that the six foot rule came out of thin
air.
again, more eager spunk swallowing.
"like many respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 can also be spread by larger
droplets from coughs or sneezes: these drops tend to fall to the ground
relatively quickly, and six feet of distancing was widely seen by
experts as a reasonable benchmark for avoiding that type of exposure"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/marjorie-taylor-greenes-attacks-of-fauci-over-covids-six-foot-rule-not-based/
Besides, what the fuck to you care? As far as you're concerned, six foot >>> proximity to other humans is way too close for you anyways.
The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most
vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
that should be 'IMIAAO'
Your ignorant and arrogant opinion
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
No one ever said the vaccine will prevent you from getting covid
dumbass. It reduced the likelyhood and in case of infection reduced the
severity.
floriduh dumbass - making the dumbshine state proud,
I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
Gee john, based on this little exchange between you and the dumbass, is
it any wonder why american tourists consistently present as obese and
stupid?
"Fauci admits that masks don't work for the public at large but still
absurdly claims masks work on an individual basis,"
https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-mask-admission-backlash-coronavirus-1824364
He [Fauci] said the 6-foot guideline �sort of just appeared� and
wasn�t based on any data, and that such a study would be difficult to
do.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jun/06/did-fauci-say-he-made-up-covid-19-rules-on-social/
The same oh-so-proudly-independent guy who repeatedly claims "the media"
is worthless now turns to media in an attempt to salvage his argument.
But his lack of reading comprehension leaves him unaware of his logical >failures.
On 4/16/2025 11:45 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/16/2025 11:17 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
The same oh-so-proudly-independent guy who repeatedly claims "the
media" is worthless now turns to media in an attempt to salvage his
argument. But his lack of reading comprehension leaves him unaware of
his logical failures.
Much like kunich, he doesn't read the links he posts, which don't
support his claims.
Right.
It occurs to me, this is the only place where I routinely interact with >people of such low intelligence.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:14:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685 >>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494 >>>
are dramatically different between our countries and all those associate >>> with deleterious outcomes with viral infections. Maybe significant,
maybe not.
I'd bet on "not." And that argument is grasping at straws.
Average death age M+W - U.S. 79.61 - Thailand 76.83
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:14:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S.� Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
���������� Total Deaths per 1 M population������ - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
������������������ Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease >>>> are dramatically different between our countries and all those associate >>>> with deleterious outcomes with viral infections. Maybe significant,
maybe not.
I'd bet on "not." And that argument is grasping at straws.
Average death age M+W - U.S. 79.61 - Thailand 76.83
I�m fairly sure had the Uk Government been more proactive would of had a >better outcome, I�m sure that UK hub type nature means the mixing and >exposure would remain high, but just simple things like starting the >lockdowns early as numbers started to rise rather than wait until they had >to, which also ment a longer lockdown as took longer for numbers to drop.
They also resisted masks and so on.
Some roads that one normally avoided as just too busy to be enjoyable for a >pleasure ride, did though become lovely roads to ride on, no cafes open so >definitely needed to be self sufficient and all that!
Roger Merriman
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to >>>believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street enforcing >>>the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
On 17 Apr 2025 07:14:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:14:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685 >>>>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease >>>>> are dramatically different between our countries and all those associate >>>>> with deleterious outcomes with viral infections. Maybe significant,
maybe not.
I'd bet on "not." And that argument is grasping at straws.
Average death age M+W - U.S. 79.61 - Thailand 76.83
Im fairly sure had the Uk Government been more proactive would of had a
better outcome, Im sure that UK hub type nature means the mixing and
exposure would remain high, but just simple things like starting the
lockdowns early as numbers started to rise rather than wait until they had >> to, which also ment a longer lockdown as took longer for numbers to drop.
They also resisted masks and so on.
Some roads that one normally avoided as just too busy to be enjoyable for a >> pleasure ride, did though become lovely roads to ride on, no cafes open so >> definitely needed to be self sufficient and all that!
Roger Merriman
One of the more ridiculous rules some of us Floridians had for a while
was that we had to wear a face diaper when we entered a restaurant and
were shown to our table, but then it could come off, because, of
course, you can't eat with it on. That was in my county even though it
is quite conservative, however, when visiting some of the more rural
counties to the North the masks were few and far between.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 17 Apr 2025 07:14:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:14:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685 >>>>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease >>>>> are dramatically different between our countries and all those associate >>>>> with deleterious outcomes with viral infections. Maybe significant,
maybe not.
I'd bet on "not." And that argument is grasping at straws.
Average death age M+W - U.S. 79.61 - Thailand 76.83
I’m fairly sure had the Uk Government been more proactive would of had a >> better outcome, I’m sure that UK hub type nature means the mixing and
exposure would remain high, but just simple things like starting the
lockdowns early as numbers started to rise rather than wait until they had >> to, which also ment a longer lockdown as took longer for numbers to drop.
They also resisted masks and so on.
Some roads that one normally avoided as just too busy to be enjoyable for a >> pleasure ride, did though become lovely roads to ride on, no cafes open so >> definitely needed to be self sufficient and all that!
Roger Merriman
One of the more ridiculous rules some of us Floridians had for a while
was that we had to wear a face diaper when we entered a restaurant and
were shown to our table, but then it could come off, because, of
course, you can't eat with it on. That was in my county even though it
is quite conservative, however, when visiting some of the more rural
counties to the North the masks were few and far between.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street enforcing >>>> the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>> left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it - >>>>> in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street enforcing >>>>> the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>>>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it - >>>>>> in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to >>>>>> believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked >>>>>> your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street enforcing >>>>>> the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives. >>>>> There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a >>>>> mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike >>>>> trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out >>>>> of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/17/2025 3:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 07:14:40 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:14:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S.� Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
���������� Total Deaths per 1 M population������ - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
������������������ Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease >>>>>> are dramatically different between our countries and all those associate >>>>>> with deleterious outcomes with viral infections. Maybe significant, >>>>>> maybe not.
I'd bet on "not." And that argument is grasping at straws.
Average death age M+W - U.S. 79.61 - Thailand 76.83
I�m fairly sure had the Uk Government been more proactive would of had a >>> better outcome, I�m sure that UK hub type nature means the mixing and
exposure would remain high, but just simple things like starting the
lockdowns early as numbers started to rise rather than wait until they had >>> to, which also ment a longer lockdown as took longer for numbers to drop. >>>
They also resisted masks and so on.
Some roads that one normally avoided as just too busy to be enjoyable for a >>> pleasure ride, did though become lovely roads to ride on, no cafes open so >>> definitely needed to be self sufficient and all that!
Roger Merriman
One of the more ridiculous rules some of us Floridians had for a while
was that we had to wear a face diaper when we entered a restaurant and
were shown to our table, but then it could come off, because, of
course, you can't eat with it on. That was in my county even though it
is quite conservative, however, when visiting some of the more rural
counties to the North the masks were few and far between.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I have never worn one.
I was refused service at a Subway once and asked to leave a
hardware store once (both politely, to which I smiled and
said 'well, you didn't make the rules').
All through that, I had my morning coffee at a diner every
day (alternating two diners) and in a more rural area near
girlfriend's farm, restaurants with salad bars were mostly
mask free and well attended.
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>> left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it - >>>>>>> in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to >>>>>>> believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked >>>>>>> your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street enforcing >>>>>>> the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives. >>>>>> There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a >>>>>> mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike >>>>>> trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out >>>>>> of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-china-iran-d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 4:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/15/2025 3:27 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I >>>>>> took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I >>>>>> believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of >>>>>> trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has
spread
more widely?
the early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure
aryan blood lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived
on in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by
the word "globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise
to power of the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers
as well.
Maybe in Germany, I truly don't know.
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class suburban
mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft left. (as with any
social phenomenon there are of course many flavors of opinion and
politics) It was unusual before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after that.
Regarding anti-Semitism, one of the notable groups here resistant to
vaccination generally are Hasidim.
https://forward.com/news/417390/measles-is-hitting-ultra-orthodox-communities-why-arent-they-vaccinating/
This agrees with my US-centric impressions. Regarding Nazi anti-vax
feelings, I understand Hitler was a vegetarian. Maybe all vegetarians
are secretly Nazis.
A vegetarian nonsmoking teetotaler I might well add.
The brain injury from the 1st world war, is probably more likely if one was going for external influences, that and that Eugenics was popular.
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime he wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-
china-iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime he
wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
On 4/15/2025 5:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Once again, covid, not flu.
Covid _is_ influenza.
It's like you don't read what you're
attempting to respond to.
More like you didn't specify seasonal flu, you said "flu", which
includes covid.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 4:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/15/2025 3:27 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise. I >>>>>>> took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it. I >>>>>>> believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among >>>>>>> Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am not in favor of >>>>>>> trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you suppose it has >>>>>>> spread
more widely?
the early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure
aryan blood lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived >>>>>> on in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by
the word "globalist". I am absolutely not surprised that the rise >>>>>> to power of the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers >>>>>> as well.
Maybe in Germany, I truly don't know.
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class suburban
mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft left. (as with any
social phenomenon there are of course many flavors of opinion and
politics) It was unusual before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after that.
Regarding anti-Semitism, one of the notable groups here resistant to >>>>> vaccination generally are Hasidim.
https://forward.com/news/417390/measles-is-hitting-ultra-orthodox-communities-why-arent-they-vaccinating/
This agrees with my US-centric impressions. Regarding Nazi anti-vax
feelings, I understand Hitler was a vegetarian. Maybe all vegetarians >>>> are secretly Nazis.
A vegetarian nonsmoking teetotaler I might well add.
The brain injury from the 1st world war, is probably more likely if one was >> going for external influences, that and that Eugenics was popular.
My point was that I would be amazed to find a person with whom I either agreed or disagreed on every particular. "Nazis liked it, therefore it
must be bad" is an ad hominem argument.
On 4/16/2025 4:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless and that the six foot rule came out of thin
air. The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most
vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
I agree it's a popular custom. but the size of viruses and the pores
of masks make that theater at best.
If you can breathe without difficulty and if it's not well sealed at
the edges, you're not blocking viruses.
Regular hospital masks can be and probably are effective for bacteria
but the size scales are radically different for viruses.
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the
other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for
creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same >>>>>>>>> rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it - >>>>>>> in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to >>>>>>> believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked >>>>>>> your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street
enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives. >>>>>> There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a >>>>>> mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike >>>>>> trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out >>>>>> of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-china-iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
On 4/17/2025 6:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia- china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime he wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
No one in USA controls what foreign heads of state say or don't say. Or could, if they so wished.
The Office of Disinformation was established to control US citizens' and
or organizations' speech, a clear and blatant 1st Amendment violation.
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime he wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/15/2025 5:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
[ ... ]
Once again, covid, not flu.
Covid _is_ influenza.
No, it is not. Coronaviruses are not influenza.
It's like you don't read what you're
attempting to respond to.
More like you didn't specify seasonal flu, you said "flu", which
includes covid.
No, it does not.
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by
upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who
skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there
are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was
unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the
political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and
remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by
deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine,"
and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and
all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially
responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of
exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's
rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population
- 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population -
68,069
Total deaths per 1 M >>>>>>>>>> population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity,
diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious
outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no
other word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease
I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are
commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask
people would shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and
stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any
public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't
under the gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on
the street enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple
of weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on
with their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I
wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move
them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask
out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone
wearing a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people
getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't
believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a
factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel
destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They
bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also
have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states
and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others
around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent
jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could
call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed
number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort"
traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to
shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody
would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering
schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-
china-iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have
enough already.
On 4/17/2025 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful
news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-
china-iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime he
wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
No one in USA controls what foreign heads of state say or
don't say. Or could, if they so wished.
The Office of Disinformation was established to control US
citizens' and or organizations' speech, a clear and
blatant 1st Amendment violation.
yet we don't hear a peep from you about the government
demanding library book bans in order to get gvt funding.
On 4/17/2025 9:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:45 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by
upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities
who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there
are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It
was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant
anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the
political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been
and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by
deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid
"vaccine," and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci)
and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially
responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of
exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's
rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population -
337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685 >>>>>>>>>>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population -
68,069
Total deaths per 1 M >>>>>>>>>>>> population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity,
diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with
deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no
other word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the
disease I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are
commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask
people would shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops
and stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any
public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't
under the gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on
the street enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a
couple of weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on
with their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that
I wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move
them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional
mask out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone
wearing a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people
getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't
believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a
factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel
destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They
bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We
also have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states
and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others
around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent
jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people
could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the
allowed number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some
sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to
shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody
would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering
schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful
news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-
china-iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't
have enough already.
I am with Justice Louis Brandeis, 1927:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the
falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
speech, not enforced silence."
Justice Kennedy, 2012:
“the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.”
I understand your thinking, and it's a defensible position.
But things are far more complicated than they were in 1927,
or even 2012. Since then, we're dealing with the potential
for (say) Russian "bots" to inundate public space with
blatant falsehoods and imaginary Americans purportedly
corroborating those falsehoods, and perhaps do so almost
immediately before an important election.
Legitimate press would have insufficient time to counter the
barrage, and the more gullible portion of the American
public is primed to believe the most outrageous claims
(Consider Pizzagate!) as long as they align with their
political leanings. We've seen that here.
I think this has already happened and affected elections.
And I think it's going to get much worse. Because, gosh,
Putin is such a good guy now!
ISTM that speech by flesh and blood Americans living in this
country should not be censored. Electronic "speech"
emanating from who-knows-where might need to be treated
differently.
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate
campaign contributions is an abomination.
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a "person" is >nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
On 4/17/2025 8:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 4:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/15/2025 3:27 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to the Nazis since >>>>>>>> the early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors poison our pure >>>>>>>> aryan blood lines".
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said otherwise.� I >>>>>>>>> took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never regretted it.� I >>>>>>>>> believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles cases are among >>>>>>>>> Mennonites, who may have a different opinion.� I am not in favor of >>>>>>>>> trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types.� Why do you suppose it has >>>>>>>>> spread
more widely?
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those times have lived >>>>>>>> on in the alt-right movement, just replacing the word "Jewish" by >>>>>>>> the word "globalist".� I am absolutely not surprised that the rise >>>>>>>> to power of the Alt-Right has given popularity to the Anti-Vaxxers >>>>>>>> as well.
Maybe in Germany, I truly don't know.
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class suburban >>>>>>> mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft left.� (as with any >>>>>>> social phenomenon there are of course many flavors of opinion and >>>>>>> politics)� It was unusual before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but >>>>>>> snowballed after that.
Regarding anti-Semitism, one of the notable groups here resistant to >>>>>>> vaccination generally are Hasidim.
https://forward.com/news/417390/measles-is-hitting-ultra-orthodox- >>>>>>> communities-why-arent-they-vaccinating/
This agrees with my US-centric impressions.� Regarding Nazi anti-vax >>>>>> feelings, I understand Hitler was a vegetarian.� Maybe all vegetarians >>>>>> are secretly Nazis.
A vegetarian nonsmoking teetotaler I might well add.
The brain injury from the 1st world war, is probably more likely if
one was
going for external influences, that and that Eugenics was popular.
My point was that I would be amazed to find a person with whom I either
agreed or disagreed on every particular.� "Nazis liked it, therefore it
must be bad" is an ad hominem argument.
Or� 'Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc'
https://helpfulprofessor.com/post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc-examples/
One should be careful when claiming something a "post hoc" fallacy.
Because, as should be obvious, many times "propter hoc" actually is
true. From your cited web page, "Such inferences may sometimes be
reasonable to make and sometimes not."
One of the jobs of science is to tell when the inferences are true. In
fact, I'd say the great bulk of science knowledge consists of true
instances of "post hoc ergo propter hoc."
We have one poster here who seems dedicated to claiming that correlation >_never_ indicated causation - or at least, raising an argument like that
for any correlation he dislikes. That's throwing the baby out with the >bathwater.
On 4/17/2025 9:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:45 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike RyderI don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, >>>>>>>>>>> heart disease are dramatically different between our
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that.� Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the >>>>>>>>>>>> same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather
amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S.� Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
������������ Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069 >>>>>>>>>>>> �������������������� Total deaths per 1 M population - 494 >>>>>>>>>>>
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes >>>>>>>>>>> with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm -� there is no other word for >>>>>>>>>> it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm
inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would >>>>>>>>>> shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores >>>>>>>>>> checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the >>>>>>>>>> gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street >>>>>>>>>> enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their >>>>>>>>> lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't
wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>>>> pretending to cough.� I still see an occasional mask out on the >>>>>>>>> bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a
thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
����������������� deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
������������������� deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the >>>>>>> masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere. >>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People >>>>>>> come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their >>>>>>> diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every >>>>>>> fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around.... >>>>>>>
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice >>>>>>> Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if >>>>>>> they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of >>>>>>> people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling >>>>>>> through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot >>>>>>> back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia- china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have enough
already.
I am with Justice Louis Brandeis, 1927:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy
to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Justice Kennedy, 2012:
�the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.�
I understand your thinking, and it's a defensible position. But things
are far more complicated than they were in 1927, or even 2012. Since
then, we're dealing with the potential for (say) Russian "bots" to
inundate public space with blatant falsehoods and imaginary Americans >purportedly corroborating those falsehoods, and perhaps do so almost >immediately before an important election.
Legitimate press would have insufficient time to counter the barrage,
and the more gullible portion of the American public is primed to
believe the most outrageous claims (Consider Pizzagate!) as long as they >align with their political leanings. We've seen that here.
I think this has already happened and affected elections. And I think
it's going to get much worse. Because, gosh, Putin is such a good guy now!
ISTM that speech by flesh and blood Americans living in this country
should not be censored. Electronic "speech" emanating from
who-knows-where might need to be treated differently.
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >contributions is an abomination.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:01:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:Well, in U.S. terms perhaps he is. After all the U.S. elected a chap
On 4/17/2025 7:45 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike RyderI don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, >>>>>>>>>>>> heart disease are dramatically different between our
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that.� Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S.� Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912 >>>>>>>>>>>>> ������������ Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069 >>>>>>>>>>>>> �������������������� Total deaths per 1 M population - 494 >>>>>>>>>>>>
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes >>>>>>>>>>>> with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm -� there is no other word for >>>>>>>>>>> it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm
inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would >>>>>>>>>>> shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores >>>>>>>>>>> checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the >>>>>>>>>>> gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street >>>>>>>>>>> enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their >>>>>>>>>> lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't >>>>>>>>>> wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>>>>> pretending to cough.� I still see an occasional mask out on the >>>>>>>>>> bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a >>>>>>>>>> thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
����������������� deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
������������������� deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the >>>>>>>> masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere. >>>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People >>>>>>>> come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their >>>>>>>> diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every >>>>>>>> fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around.... >>>>>>>>
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice >>>>>>>> Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if >>>>>>>> they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of >>>>>>>> people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling >>>>>>>> through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot >>>>>>>> back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia- china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have enough
already.
I am with Justice Louis Brandeis, 1927:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy
to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Justice Kennedy, 2012:
�the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.�
I understand your thinking, and it's a defensible position. But things
are far more complicated than they were in 1927, or even 2012. Since
then, we're dealing with the potential for (say) Russian "bots" to
inundate public space with blatant falsehoods and imaginary Americans >>purportedly corroborating those falsehoods, and perhaps do so almost >>immediately before an important election.
Legitimate press would have insufficient time to counter the barrage,
and the more gullible portion of the American public is primed to
believe the most outrageous claims (Consider Pizzagate!) as long as they >>align with their political leanings. We've seen that here.
I think this has already happened and affected elections. And I think
it's going to get much worse. Because, gosh, Putin is such a good guy now!
who sexually assaults women department stores as President,.
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>> left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that.� Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same >>>>>>>>>> rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S.� Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
������������ Total Deaths per 1 M population������ - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
�������������������� Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm -� there is no other word for it - >>>>>>>> in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to >>>>>>>> believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores� checked >>>>>>>> your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street
enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives. >>>>>>> There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a >>>>>>> mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>> pretending to cough.� I still see an occasional mask out on the bike >>>>>>> trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out >>>>>>> of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
����������������� deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
������������������� deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every >>>>> fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot >>>>> back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have enough already.
On 4/17/2025 8:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 4:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/15/2025 3:27 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 15.04.2025 um 02:40 schrieb Radey Shouman:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:The Anti-vax movement has been strongly linked to
A direct effect of the anti-vax movement.
I'm in favor of measles vaccination, and never said
otherwise. I
took
the vaccine back when it was quite new, and never
regretted it. I
believe most of the Texas and New Mexico measles
cases are among
Mennonites, who may have a different opinion. I am
not in favor of
trying to force them to vaccinate.
The anti-vax movement used to be the province of
wealthy,
overprivileged, nutty granola types. Why do you
suppose it has
spread
more widely?
the Nazis since
the early 1930's "we cannot have Jewish doctors
poison our pure
aryan blood lines".
The "Jewish Domination" Consipracy claims of those
times have lived
on in the alt-right movement, just replacing the
word "Jewish" by
the word "globalist". I am absolutely not surprised
that the rise
to power of the Alt-Right has given popularity to
the Anti-Vaxxers
as well.
Maybe in Germany, I truly don't know.
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper
class suburban
mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any
social phenomenon there are of course many flavors of
opinion and
politics) It was unusual before that quack Wakefield
(1998?) but
snowballed after that.
Regarding anti-Semitism, one of the notable groups
here resistant to
vaccination generally are Hasidim.
https://forward.com/news/417390/measles-is-hitting-
ultra-orthodox- communities-why-arent-they-vaccinating/
This agrees with my US-centric impressions. Regarding
Nazi anti-vax
feelings, I understand Hitler was a vegetarian. Maybe
all vegetarians
are secretly Nazis.
A vegetarian nonsmoking teetotaler I might well add.
The brain injury from the 1st world war, is probably
more likely if one was
going for external influences, that and that Eugenics
was popular.
My point was that I would be amazed to find a person with
whom I either
agreed or disagreed on every particular. "Nazis liked
it, therefore it
must be bad" is an ad hominem argument.
Or 'Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc'
https://helpfulprofessor.com/post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc-
examples/
One should be careful when claiming something a "post hoc"
fallacy. Because, as should be obvious, many times "propter
hoc" actually is true. From your cited web page, "Such
inferences may sometimes be reasonable to make and sometimes
not."
One of the jobs of science is to tell when the inferences
are true. In fact, I'd say the great bulk of science
knowledge consists of true instances of "post hoc ergo
propter hoc."
We have one poster here who seems dedicated to claiming that
correlation _never_ indicated causation - or at least,
raising an argument like that for any correlation he
dislikes. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate
campaign contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I
absolutely do), then why may my right be curtailed when I
join with others of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before
USA) that corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to
rights of their composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is nuts. But even if one accepts their
"personhood," they should be limited to the amount of speech
that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 05:01:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:45:49 -0400, zen cycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:Right, because Joe Biden is sharp as the preverbal tack.
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike RyderI don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, >>>>>>>>>>> heart disease are dramatically different between our
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that.� Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same >>>>>>>>>>>> rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S.� Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
������������ Total Deaths per 1 M population������ - 3685 >>>>>>>>>>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069 >>>>>>>>>>>> �������������������� Total deaths per 1 M population - 494 >>>>>>>>>>>
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes >>>>>>>>>>> with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm -� there is no other word for it - >>>>>>>>>> in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to >>>>>>>>>> believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>>>>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores� checked >>>>>>>>>> your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>>>>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street >>>>>>>>>> enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives. >>>>>>>>> There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a >>>>>>>>> mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>>>> pretending to cough.� I still see an occasional mask out on the bike >>>>>>>>> trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out >>>>>>>>> of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
����������������� deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
������������������� deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the >>>>>>> masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere. >>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People >>>>>>> come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their >>>>>>> diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every >>>>>>> fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around.... >>>>>>>
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice >>>>>>> Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if >>>>>>> they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of >>>>>>> people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling >>>>>>> through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot >>>>>>> back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have enough already. >>
"start your tape right now because I'm about to tell you the truth.
[-] And F--- you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Bidden >>intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close
second. And I have known him for years. The Brzezinski have known him
for 50 years. If it weren't the truth I wouldn't say it." >>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/2909317/the-best-biden-ever/
A former editor of The New York Times has accused the White House of >>conducting �a massive cover-up of the degree of the president�s
feebleness and his serious physical decline� and chastised the press
for not covering the story until after Joe Biden�s disastrous debate
with Donald Trump.
�It�s clear the best news reporters in Washington have failed in the
first duty of journalism: to hold power accountable. It is our duty to
poke through White House smoke screens and find out the truth,� Jill >>Abramson said, adding, �It is simply astounding for the entire
country, including its most seasoned reporters, to be as shocked as >>everyone was by the ugly and painful reality of (President Joe)
Biden�s debate performance.� >>https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/07/11/joe-biden-debate-disaster-media-complicit/
Some people still trust the mass media, but not very many.. >>https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-remains-trend-low.aspx
True, all true. Far better to get your information from the Bozo on
the Internet that always tells it just like you want it to be.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), then >>> why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin. That suggests to
me that the amount of money spent is less significant than the characteristics of the candidates and the number of times and places
that their campaign messages get repeated.
--
"Let it be"
--Paul McCartney
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:01:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:Well, in U.S. terms perhaps he is. After all the U.S. elected a chap
On 4/17/2025 7:45 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, >>>>>>>>>>>> heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes >>>>>>>>>>>> with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for >>>>>>>>>>> it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm
inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would >>>>>>>>>>> shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores >>>>>>>>>>> checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the >>>>>>>>>>> gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street >>>>>>>>>>> enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their >>>>>>>>>> lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't >>>>>>>>>> wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>>>>> pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the >>>>>>>>>> bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a >>>>>>>>>> thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the >>>>>>>> masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere. >>>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People >>>>>>>> come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their >>>>>>>> diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every >>>>>>>> fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around.... >>>>>>>>
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice >>>>>>>> Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if >>>>>>>> they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of >>>>>>>> people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling >>>>>>>> through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot >>>>>>>> back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia- china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have enough
already.
I am with Justice Louis Brandeis, 1927:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy
to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Justice Kennedy, 2012:
“the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.”
I understand your thinking, and it's a defensible position. But things
are far more complicated than they were in 1927, or even 2012. Since
then, we're dealing with the potential for (say) Russian "bots" to
inundate public space with blatant falsehoods and imaginary Americans
purportedly corroborating those falsehoods, and perhaps do so almost
immediately before an important election.
Legitimate press would have insufficient time to counter the barrage,
and the more gullible portion of the American public is primed to
believe the most outrageous claims (Consider Pizzagate!) as long as they
align with their political leanings. We've seen that here.
I think this has already happened and affected elections. And I think
it's going to get much worse. Because, gosh, Putin is such a good guy now! >>
who sexually assaults women department stores as President,.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 05:01:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:45:49 -0400, zen cycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:Right, because Joe Biden is sharp as the preverbal tack.
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same >>>>>>>>>>>> rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069 >>>>>>>>>>>> Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, >>>>>>>>>>> heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes >>>>>>>>>>> with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to >>>>>>>>>> believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>>>>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked >>>>>>>>>> your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>>>>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street >>>>>>>>>> enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives. >>>>>>>>> There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a >>>>>>>>> mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>>>> pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike >>>>>>>>> trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out >>>>>>>>> of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the >>>>>>> masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere. >>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People >>>>>>> come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their >>>>>>> diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every >>>>>>> fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around.... >>>>>>>
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice >>>>>>> Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if >>>>>>> they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of >>>>>>> people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling >>>>>>> through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot >>>>>>> back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have enough already. >>
"start your tape right now because I'm about to tell you the truth.
[-] And F--- you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Bidden
intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close
second. And I have known him for years. The Brzezinski have known him
for 50 years. If it weren't the truth I wouldn't say it."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/2909317/the-best-biden-ever/ >>
A former editor of The New York Times has accused the White House of
conducting “a massive cover-up of the degree of the president’s
feebleness and his serious physical decline” and chastised the press
for not covering the story until after Joe Biden’s disastrous debate
with Donald Trump.
“It’s clear the best news reporters in Washington have failed in the
first duty of journalism: to hold power accountable. It is our duty to
poke through White House smoke screens and find out the truth,” Jill
Abramson said, adding, “It is simply astounding for the entire
country, including its most seasoned reporters, to be as shocked as
everyone was by the ugly and painful reality of (President Joe)
Biden’s debate performance.”
https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/07/11/joe-biden-debate-disaster-media-complicit/
Some people still trust the mass media, but not very many..
https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-remains-trend-low.aspx
True, all true. Far better to get your information from the Bozo on
the Internet that always tells it just like you want it to be.
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/15/2025 5:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
[ ... ]
Once again, covid, not flu.
Covid _is_ influenza.
No, it is not. Coronaviruses are not influenza.
It's like you don't read what you're
attempting to respond to.
More like you didn't specify seasonal flu, you said "flu", which
includes covid.
No, it does not.
On 4/15/2025 5:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Interesting. I didn't see any information on flu shots, except for one
sentence including them among vaccinations that save lives. That's
almost evidence that European nations *don't* require flu shots for
toddlers.
OK, here ya go:
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/seasonal-influenza/prevention-and-control/ seasonal-influenza-vaccines
"Vaccination is especially important for people at higher risk of
serious influenza complications: individuals with specific chronic
medical conditions, pregnant women, children aged 6-59 months, the
elderly and healthcare workers."
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I
realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other >>>>>>>> scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same
rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it - >>>>> in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked >>>>> your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street enforcing >>>>> the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor stores and
casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools and churches closed.
On 4/17/2025 7:57 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia- china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime he wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
No one in USA controls what foreign heads of state say or don't say.
Or could, if they so wished.
The Office of Disinformation was established to control US citizens'
and or organizations' speech, a clear and blatant 1st Amendment
violation.
yet we don't hear a peep from you about the government demanding
library book bans in order to get gvt funding.
Which only indicates you are not paying attention.
I have consistently complained about it, excepting only prurient
materials for minor children.
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do),
then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a "person" is >>> nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be limited >>> to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:01:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:Well, in U.S. terms perhaps he is. After all the U.S. elected a chap
On 4/17/2025 7:45 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, >>>>>>>>>>>> heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes >>>>>>>>>>>> with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for >>>>>>>>>>> it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm
inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would >>>>>>>>>>> shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores >>>>>>>>>>> checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the >>>>>>>>>>> gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street >>>>>>>>>>> enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their >>>>>>>>>> lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't >>>>>>>>>> wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>>>>> pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the >>>>>>>>>> bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a >>>>>>>>>> thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the >>>>>>>> masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere. >>>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People >>>>>>>> come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their >>>>>>>> diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every >>>>>>>> fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around.... >>>>>>>>
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice >>>>>>>> Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if >>>>>>>> they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of >>>>>>>> people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling >>>>>>>> through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot >>>>>>>> back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia- china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have enough
already.
I am with Justice Louis Brandeis, 1927:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy
to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Justice Kennedy, 2012:
“the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.”
I understand your thinking, and it's a defensible position. But things
are far more complicated than they were in 1927, or even 2012. Since
then, we're dealing with the potential for (say) Russian "bots" to
inundate public space with blatant falsehoods and imaginary Americans
purportedly corroborating those falsehoods, and perhaps do so almost
immediately before an important election.
Legitimate press would have insufficient time to counter the barrage,
and the more gullible portion of the American public is primed to
believe the most outrageous claims (Consider Pizzagate!) as long as they
align with their political leanings. We've seen that here.
I think this has already happened and affected elections. And I think
it's going to get much worse. Because, gosh, Putin is such a good guy now! >>
who sexually assaults women department stores as President,.
On 4/17/2025 9:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:57 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful
news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-
russia- china-iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime
he wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
No one in USA controls what foreign heads of state say
or don't say. Or could, if they so wished.
The Office of Disinformation was established to control
US citizens' and or organizations' speech, a clear and
blatant 1st Amendment violation.
yet we don't hear a peep from you about the government
demanding library book bans in order to get gvt funding.
Which only indicates you are not paying attention.
I have consistently complained about it, excepting only
prurient materials for minor children.
I remember conversations where you expressed support for
removal of "prurient" materials. I don't recall you
criticizing removal of reading materials in general, to the
extent that you gave links for the purchase of used books
for specific titles that were mentioned in this forum, which
smacked of a rationalization (at best) of removing To Kill A
Mockingbird was really no big deal since you could find it
for $195 online. That isn't a condemnation of book banning
in _my_ book.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 05:01:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:45:49 -0400, zen cycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:Right, because Joe Biden is sharp as the preverbal tack.
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same >>>>>>>>>>>> rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069 >>>>>>>>>>>> Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, >>>>>>>>>>> heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes >>>>>>>>>>> with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to >>>>>>>>>> believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>>>>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked >>>>>>>>>> your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>>>>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street >>>>>>>>>> enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives. >>>>>>>>> There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a >>>>>>>>> mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>>>> pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike >>>>>>>>> trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out >>>>>>>>> of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the >>>>>>> masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere. >>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People >>>>>>> come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their >>>>>>> diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every >>>>>>> fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around.... >>>>>>>
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice >>>>>>> Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if >>>>>>> they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of >>>>>>> people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling >>>>>>> through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot >>>>>>> back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools
and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia-china-iran-
d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have enough already. >>
"start your tape right now because I'm about to tell you the truth.
[-] And F--- you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Bidden
intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close
second. And I have known him for years. The Brzezinski have known him
for 50 years. If it weren't the truth I wouldn't say it."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/2909317/the-best-biden-ever/ >>
A former editor of The New York Times has accused the White House of
conducting “a massive cover-up of the degree of the president’s
feebleness and his serious physical decline” and chastised the press
for not covering the story until after Joe Biden’s disastrous debate
with Donald Trump.
“It’s clear the best news reporters in Washington have failed in the
first duty of journalism: to hold power accountable. It is our duty to
poke through White House smoke screens and find out the truth,” Jill
Abramson said, adding, “It is simply astounding for the entire
country, including its most seasoned reporters, to be as shocked as
everyone was by the ugly and painful reality of (President Joe)
Biden’s debate performance.”
https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/07/11/joe-biden-debate-disaster-media-complicit/
Some people still trust the mass media, but not very many..
https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-remains-trend-low.aspx
True, all true. Far better to get your information from the Bozo on
the Internet that always tells it just like you want it to be.
On 4/18/2025 10:12 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by
upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who
skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are
of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was
unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the
political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and
remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by
deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine,"
and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and
all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially
responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of
exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather
amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - >>>>>>>>> 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population
- 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious
outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other
word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease
I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are
commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask
people would shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and
stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public
seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't
under the gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the
street enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of
weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on with
their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I
wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move
them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask
out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing
a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people
getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't
believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor
anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel
destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They
bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also
have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and
Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others
around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent
jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could
call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed
number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort"
traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to
shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody
would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering
schools and churches closed.
Those weren't decisions based in science, obviously.
That was the Official Policy at the time, "because...
'Science!' "
On 4/17/2025 8:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by
upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who
skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are
of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was
unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the
political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and
remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by
deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine,"
and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and
all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially
responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of
exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather
amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - >>>>>>>> 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population >>>>>>>> - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious
outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other
word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease
I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are
commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask
people would shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and
stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public
seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't
under the gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the
street enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of
weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on with
their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I
wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move
them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask
out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing
a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people
getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't
believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor
anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel
destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They
bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also
have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and
Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others
around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent
jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could
call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed
number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort"
traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to
shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody
would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering
schools and churches closed.
Those weren't decisions based in science, obviously.
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/16/2025 4:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless and that the six foot rule came out of thin >>>> air. The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most
vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
I agree it's a popular custom. but the size of viruses and the pores
of masks make that theater at best.
If you can breathe without difficulty and if it's not well sealed at
the edges, you're not blocking viruses.
If you have any facial hair between skin and mask, it's not blocking
viruses. If you can smell anything with the mask on, it's not blocking viruses.
OSHA has a fit test partly based on trying to smell banana oil:
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA
I hear it's fairly difficult to pass.
Regular hospital masks can be and probably are effective for bacteria
but the size scales are radically different for viruses.
On 4/18/2025 10:12 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the
other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for
creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same >>>>>>>>> rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for it - >>>>>>> in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm inclined to >>>>>>> believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and >>>>>>> during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would shake >>>>>>> their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores checked >>>>>>> your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the gaze of >>>>>>> some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street
enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their lives. >>>>>> There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't wearing a >>>>>> mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the bike >>>>>> trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a thrill out >>>>>> of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor stores and
casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools and churches closed.
Those weren't decisions based in science, obviously.
That was the Official Policy at the time, "because... 'Science!' "
On 4/17/2025 9:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:57 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful
news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-
russia- china-iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime
he wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
No one in USA controls what foreign heads of state say
or don't say. Or could, if they so wished.
The Office of Disinformation was established to control
US citizens' and or organizations' speech, a clear and
blatant 1st Amendment violation.
yet we don't hear a peep from you about the government
demanding library book bans in order to get gvt funding.
Which only indicates you are not paying attention.
I have consistently complained about it, excepting only
prurient materials for minor children.
I remember conversations where you expressed support for
removal of "prurient" materials. I don't recall you
criticizing removal of reading materials in general, to the
extent that you gave links for the purchase of used books
for specific titles that were mentioned in this forum, which
smacked of a rationalization (at best) of removing To Kill A
Mockingbird was really no big deal since you could find it
for $195 online. That isn't a condemnation of book banning
in _my_ book.
On 4/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 10:12 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by
upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who
skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there
are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was
unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the
political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been and
remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by
deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine,"
and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and
all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially
responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of
exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's
rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population
- 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population -
68,069
Total deaths per 1 M >>>>>>>>>> population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity,
diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious
outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no
other word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease
I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are
commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask
people would shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and
stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any
public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't
under the gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on
the street enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple
of weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on
with their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I
wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move
them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask
out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone
wearing a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people
getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't
believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a
factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel
destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They
bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also
have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states
and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others
around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent
jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could
call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed
number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort"
traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to
shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody
would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave
liquor stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while
ordering schools and churches closed.
Those weren't decisions based in science, obviously.
That was the Official Policy at the time, "because...
'Science!' "
Not buyin' it. If you have a link showing that the policy to
open liquor stores and casinos was based in some science
claim, present it. AKAIU it was exclusively based on a
combination of business and public sentiment.
On 4/18/2025 10:17 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:57 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation- russia- china-
iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime he wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
No one in USA controls what foreign heads of state say or don't
say. Or could, if they so wished.
The Office of Disinformation was established to control US
citizens' and or organizations' speech, a clear and blatant 1st
Amendment violation.
yet we don't hear a peep from you about the government demanding
library book bans in order to get gvt funding.
Which only indicates you are not paying attention.
I have consistently complained about it, excepting only prurient
materials for minor children.
I remember conversations where you expressed support for removal of
"prurient" materials. I don't recall you criticizing removal of
reading materials in general, to the extent that you gave links for
the purchase of used books for specific titles that were mentioned in
this forum, which smacked of a rationalization (at best) of removing
To Kill A Mockingbird was really no big deal since you could find it
for $195 online. That isn't a condemnation of book banning in _my_ book.
My point was merely that parents who wish their children to read
materials unavailable in the local public or school library are
perfectly free to acquire those books.
Surprising to me, Ms Lee's work starts at $30 which is really high for a once-very-popular paperback:
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch? mtype=B&keyword=to+kill+a+mocking+bird+harper+lee&hs.x=0&hs.y=0
More typical for similar works is 99 cents:
https://www.alibris.com/The-Adventures-of-Huckleberry-Finn-Mark-Twain/ book/146182?qsort=p&matches=4085
On 4/18/2025 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 10:17 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:57 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and
hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-
russia- china- iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants
anytime he wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
No one in USA controls what foreign heads of state say
or don't say. Or could, if they so wished.
The Office of Disinformation was established to
control US citizens' and or organizations' speech, a
clear and blatant 1st Amendment violation.
yet we don't hear a peep from you about the government
demanding library book bans in order to get gvt funding.
Which only indicates you are not paying attention.
I have consistently complained about it, excepting only
prurient materials for minor children.
I remember conversations where you expressed support
for removal of "prurient" materials. I don't recall you
criticizing removal of reading materials in general, to
the extent that you gave links for the purchase of used
books for specific titles that were mentioned in this
forum, which smacked of a rationalization (at best) of
removing To Kill A Mockingbird was really no big deal
since you could find it for $195 online. That isn't a
condemnation of book banning in _my_ book.
My point was merely that parents who wish their children
to read materials unavailable in the local public or
school library are perfectly free to acquire those books.
For now.....Besides, that line of reasoning serves as
rationalization for library book bans.
Surprising to me, Ms Lee's work starts at $30 which is
really high for a once-very-popular paperback:
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?
mtype=B&keyword=to+kill+a+mocking+bird+harper+lee&hs.x=0&hs.y=0
More typical for similar works is 99 cents:
https://www.alibris.com/The-Adventures-of-Huckleberry-
Finn-Mark-Twain/ book/146182?qsort=p&matches=4085
I just realized I typo'd my earlier response, $195 should
have been $1.95
On 4/18/2025 10:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely
do), then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be
limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
You and I agree on that.
Others see it differently:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14461599/stephen-smith- demolishes-joy-behard.html
Mr Smith cites actual undisputed facts yet makes a very different
conclusion. As is his right, but I don't agree.
That said, the Presidential elections of 2016 and again in 2024 featured higher expenditure by the 2d place candidate which does cast a shadow
over widespread irrational fear of 'money in politics'. We're a nation saturated in media of all sorts and promoting a message, any message, is inherently expensive to garner any attention at all. Plus repetition of
the message. Money is classically necessary but not sufficient.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 11:26:52 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:01:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:Well, in U.S. terms perhaps he is. After all the U.S. elected a chap
On 4/17/2025 7:45 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:39:11 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike RyderLike I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the >>>>>>>>>> masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere. >>>>>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word for >>>>>>>>>>>>> it -
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart disease are dramatically different between our >>>>>>>>>>>>>> countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>> inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would >>>>>>>>>>>>> shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores >>>>>>>>>>>>> checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the >>>>>>>>>>>>> gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street >>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their >>>>>>>>>>>> lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>> wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>>>>>>> pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the >>>>>>>>>>>> bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a >>>>>>>>>>>> thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433 >>>>>>>>>>>
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499 >>>>>>>>>>
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People >>>>>>>>>> come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their >>>>>>>>>> diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>>>>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around.... >>>>>>>>>>
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice >>>>>>>>>> Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if >>>>>>>>>> they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of >>>>>>>>>> people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling >>>>>>>>>> through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>>>>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor
stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools >>>>>>>>> and churches closed.
... Gyms and health clubs closed, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-russia- china-iran- >>>>>>> d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
right, because we need _more_ disinformation. We don't have enough >>>>>> already.
I am with Justice Louis Brandeis, 1927:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy >>>>> to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Justice Kennedy, 2012:
“the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.”
I understand your thinking, and it's a defensible position. But things >>>> are far more complicated than they were in 1927, or even 2012. Since
then, we're dealing with the potential for (say) Russian "bots" to
inundate public space with blatant falsehoods and imaginary Americans
purportedly corroborating those falsehoods, and perhaps do so almost
immediately before an important election.
Legitimate press would have insufficient time to counter the barrage,
and the more gullible portion of the American public is primed to
believe the most outrageous claims (Consider Pizzagate!) as long as they >>>> align with their political leanings. We've seen that here.
I think this has already happened and affected elections. And I think
it's going to get much worse. Because, gosh, Putin is such a good guy now! >>>>
who sexually assaults women department stores as President,.
And claimed in a presidential debate that immigration was a problem
because immigrants in Springfield Ohio were eating white folks cats.
I've wondered about that. My grandfather hunted foxes (with a gun and
a dog) for their pelts and in some discussion with a hunting friend
they got to wondering about eating one... "we shot that critter and
skinned it,now can we eat it?" So my grandmother baked one. It was so
rank that they couldn't eat it. Fox = meat eater=bad taste, I expect
that a cat which is also a carnivorous creature would be much the
same.
On 4/18/2025 10:56 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 10:12 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B.
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by
upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities
who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there
are of course
many flavors of opinion and politics) It was
unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but
snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant
anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the
political spectrum,
but the often deliberate ignorance has been
and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by
deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine,"
and then I realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci)
and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially
responsible for creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of
exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's
rather amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685 >>>>>>>>>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population -
68,069
Total deaths per 1 M >>>>>>>>>>> population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity,
diabetes,
heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious
outcomes
with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no
other word for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease
I'm inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are
commonly seen and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask
people would shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and
stores checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any
public seating was
marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't
under the gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on
the street enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple
of weeks, and
then most people ignored all the rules and went on
with their lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I
wasn't wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move
them away by
pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask
out on the bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone
wearing a mask when
they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people
getting a thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't
believe the
masks and other forced restrictions were much of a
factor anywhere.
Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel
destination. People
come here on a vacation from all over the world. They
bring their
diseases and Florida people interact with them. We
also have a bunch
of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states
and Canada every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others
around....
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent
jackass Vice
Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people
could call in if
they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed
number of
people in their home. He also had "agents of some
sort" traveling
through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to
shoot at people
who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody
would have shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave
liquor stores and casinos open (tax revenue) while
ordering schools and churches closed.
Those weren't decisions based in science, obviously.
That was the Official Policy at the time, "because...
'Science!' "
Not buyin' it. If you have a link showing that the policy
to open liquor stores and casinos was based in some
science claim, present it. AKAIU it was exclusively based
on a combination of business and public sentiment.
Those express words, "Guided by science", from Governor
Whitmer:
https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/news/whitmer- praised-at-the-time-of-lockdown-orders
Can't track down other petty martinets masquerading as
Governors at that time but ISTR the same phrase repeated.
On 4/18/2025 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 10:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or
corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I
absolutely do), then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others
of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well
before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to
rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation
being a "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they
should be limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024
Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US
Presidential elections it ranks as the 11th closest
margin (out of 47).
You and I agree on that.
Others see it differently:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14461599/
stephen-smith- demolishes-joy-behard.html
Mr Smith cites actual undisputed facts yet makes a very
different conclusion. As is his right, but I don't agree.
I hadn't seen that, thanks. My opinion is that at best he's
overstating the significance, at worst he delusional. My
only exposure to him is his ESPN show First Take where he
'debates' sports events with other sports commentators. I've
watched the show a few times, it's much like The McLaughlin
Group for sports, including the shouting matches of which
Smith is a regular antagonist. I can't stand that format.
That said, the Presidential elections of 2016 and again in
2024 featured higher expenditure by the 2d place candidate
which does cast a shadow over widespread irrational fear
of 'money in politics'. We're a nation saturated in media
of all sorts and promoting a message, any message, is
inherently expensive to garner any attention at all. Plus
repetition of the message. Money is classically necessary
but not sufficient.
yup, ditto Wisconsin Supreme Court election
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wisconsin-supreme-court- race-passes-90-million-spending/story?id=120343103
"That $90 million includes more than $40 million total spent
by the liberal candidate, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford,
and groups supporting her -- and almost $50 million total
spent by the conservative candidate Waukesha County Judge
Brad Schimel and groups supporting him."
On 4/18/2025 9:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do),
then why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a "person"
is nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be
limited to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
Apply the same logic to� unions, fraternal organizations and political
parties and then think it over.
I'd be willing to apply it to those.
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do),
then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a "person" is >>>> nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be limited >>>> to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
On 4/18/2025 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 10:56 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 10:12 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 3:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:03:46 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:05:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:39:54 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:42:59 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I >>>>>>>>>>>>> realised
that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the >>>>>>>>>>>>> other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for >>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the >>>>>>>>>>>> same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather
amazingly low
Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685 >>>>>>>>>>>>
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069 >>>>>>>>>>>> Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I don't know but the general rates of obesity, diabetes, >>>>>>>>>>> heart disease are dramatically different between our
countries and all those associate with deleterious outcomes >>>>>>>>>>> with viral infections. Maybe significant, maybe not.
Given the overwhelming enthusiasm - there is no other word >>>>>>>>>> for it -
in doing everything possible to "fight" the disease I'm
inclined to
believe it was that effort. Even today masks are commonly seen >>>>>>>>>> and
during the epidemic if you weren't wearing a mask people would >>>>>>>>>> shake
their finger at you and say "mask, mask". Shops and stores >>>>>>>>>> checked
your temperature before you were admitted. Any public seating was >>>>>>>>>> marked off in 6 foot lines. And all of this wasn't under the >>>>>>>>>> gaze of
some "big boss" it was the common ordinary man on the street >>>>>>>>>> enforcing
the rules.
Here in Florida the "enthusiasm" lasted for a couple of weeks, and >>>>>>>>> then most people ignored all the rules and went on with their >>>>>>>>> lives.
There were always a few loonies who mentioned that I wasn't
wearing a
mask, but they were easy to ignore and I could move them away by >>>>>>>>> pretending to cough. I still see an occasional mask out on the >>>>>>>>> bike
trails miles away from civilization or someone wearing a mask when >>>>>>>>> they're all alone in their car.
The whole thing was smoke and mirrors and people getting a
thrill out
of giving orders to other people.
Florida - cases/M pop - 374,722
deaths/M pop - 4,433
Thailand - cases/M pop - 68,069
deaths/M pop - 499
Like I said, there are many factors involved. I don't believe the >>>>>>> masks and other forced restrictions were much of a factor anywhere. >>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
Florida had a problem because it's a big travel destination. People >>>>>>> come here on a vacation from all over the world. They bring their >>>>>>> diseases and Florida people interact with them. We also have a bunch >>>>>>> of "snowbirds" who roll in here from northern states and Canada
every
fall.
As for people getting a thrill out of ordering others around.... >>>>>>>
The jackass governor of Minnesota (who was the recent jackass Vice >>>>>>> Pres candidate) set up a tattle site where people could call in if >>>>>>> they thought their neighbors had more than the allowed number of >>>>>>> people in their home. He also had "agents of some sort" traveling >>>>>>> through neighborhoods with paint guns threatening to shoot at people >>>>>>> who had not obeyed his curfew orders.
Had that happened in some places in Florida, somebody would have >>>>>>> shot
back with a real gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Oh, and 'The Science' which led Governors to leave liquor stores
and casinos open (tax revenue) while ordering schools and churches >>>>>> closed.
Those weren't decisions based in science, obviously.
That was the Official Policy at the time, "because... 'Science!' "
Not buyin' it. If you have a link showing that the policy to open
liquor stores and casinos was based in some science claim, present
it. AKAIU it was exclusively based on a combination of business and
public sentiment.
Those express words, "Guided by science", from Governor Whitmer:
https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/news/whitmer- praised-at-
the-time-of-lockdown-orders
Can't track down other petty martinets masquerading as Governors at
that time but ISTR the same phrase repeated.
New York Times of 3 December, 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/us/california-stay-at-home-order.html
(evade paywall: right click "view page source" then extract text in a
text reader.)
On 4/18/2025 10:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or
corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I
absolutely do), then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others
of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before
USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights
of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation
being a "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they
should be limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024
Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US
Presidential elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin
(out of 47).
You and I agree on that.
Others see it differently:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14461599/stephen-smith-demolishes-joy-behard.html
Mr Smith cites actual undisputed facts yet makes a very
different conclusion. As is his right, but I don't agree.
That said, the Presidential elections of 2016 and again in
2024 featured higher expenditure by the 2d place candidate
which does cast a shadow over widespread irrational fear of
'money in politics'. We're a nation saturated in media of
all sorts and promoting a message, any message, is
inherently expensive to garner any attention at all. Plus
repetition of the message. Money is classically necessary
but not sufficient.
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), then >>>> why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a "person" is >>> nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be limited >>> to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin. That suggests to
me that the amount of money spent is less significant than the
characteristics of the candidates and the number of times and places
that their campaign messages get repeated.
--
"Let it be"
--Paul McCartney
Maybe. Could also be the c and the
actual policies promulgated. For some voters, anyway.
On 4/18/2025 4:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:01:15 -0400, Frank KrygowskiAs usual, Mr. Tricycle Rider is off-track (or off nice safe bike path?) >again.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
Fearing what other people say has a remedy. It's called "put on your
big girl panties." You might also try stop listening and reading what
you're afraid to hear.
My "fear" [sic] is about easily deluded sheep believing every bit of
right wing propaganda that spouts from corporations, "the world's
richest man," the Kremlin and its bots, and an army of anti-social
"incels" living in basements and flooding the web with their worshipful >approval of that crap.
Of course, our timid tricycle rider is part of that anti-social group, >getting his information only from his echo chamber. (Except that living
in Florida, he probably has no basement.)
On 4/18/2025 10:17 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 7:57 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2025 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 6:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On that subject, today brings some helpful and hopeful
news:
https://apnews.com/article/rubio-disinformation-
russia- china-iran- d53d00551a0a57f3114431c624db0b0f
Government censorship doesn't play well with me.
Hmm. So Vladimir gets to say anything he wants anytime
he wants?
I guess that's handy if he's on your election team.
No one in USA controls what foreign heads of state say
or don't say. Or could, if they so wished.
The Office of Disinformation was established to control
US citizens' and or organizations' speech, a clear and
blatant 1st Amendment violation.
yet we don't hear a peep from you about the government
demanding library book bans in order to get gvt funding.
Which only indicates you are not paying attention.
I have consistently complained about it, excepting only
prurient materials for minor children.
�I remember conversations where you expressed support for
removal of "prurient" materials. I don't recall you
criticizing removal of reading materials in general, to the
extent that you gave links for the purchase of used books
for specific titles that were mentioned in this forum, which
smacked of a rationalization (at best) of removing To Kill A
Mockingbird was really no big deal since you could find it
for $195 online. That isn't a condemnation of book banning
in _my_ book.
I am not in favor of book bans*.
I made clear that the periodically newsy local missteps
(with which I disagree) are and ought to be in the province
of the local taxpayers/voters (library board, school board,
city council, whatever).
Where bans are imposed autocratically, the official
responsible ought to be removed IMHO. But that is also not
my decision to make.
Also, there cannot be any discussion of merit or utility for
any given book as starting that line of thought runs
straight into 1st Amendment case law on 'viewpoint
discrimination'.
Any talk of a national ban is ridiculous. That's well
outside enumerated powers, period.
*Restricting minor children's access to prurient materials
is not a 'book ban' any more than an ID card to buy liquor
is a 'liquor ban'.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 11:17:13 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 10:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or
corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I
absolutely do), then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others
of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before
USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights
of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation
being a "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they
should be limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024
Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US
Presidential elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin
(out of 47).
You and I agree on that.
Others see it differently:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14461599/stephen-smith-demolishes-joy-behard.html
Mr Smith cites actual undisputed facts yet makes a very
different conclusion. As is his right, but I don't agree.
That said, the Presidential elections of 2016 and again in
2024 featured higher expenditure by the 2d place candidate
which does cast a shadow over widespread irrational fear of
'money in politics'. We're a nation saturated in media of
all sorts and promoting a message, any message, is
inherently expensive to garner any attention at all. Plus
repetition of the message. Money is classically necessary
but not sufficient.
Every state swung toward the right. I see that as significant.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first (uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better.� And should have corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing �to create stories so that the American
media actually pays attention.� In other words, to blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
On 4/18/2025 12:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
ISTM that the closures _were_ guided by science. The failure to close
Those express words, "Guided by science",� from Governor Whitmer:
https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/news/whitmer-praised-at-the-
time-of-lockdown-orders
certain gathering places were anti-science, and guided by philosophies
that gave economics precedence over science.
You, Andrew, seemed to be against any closures. That position is and was >anti-science.
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be
limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first (uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better. And should have corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that the American
media actually pays attention.” In other words, to blatantly lie. Nobody >> as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories... That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/18/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 12:27 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Surprising to me, Ms Lee's work starts at $30 which is
really high for a once-very-popular paperback:
... today the going rate is way up. Wonder why? I hardly
ever go over $20 for any book and most are under $10.
"Wonder why?"
ISTM an almost universal effect of anything being banned is
an increase in price for that item!
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first (uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better.� And should have corrected his >>>>> misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing �to create stories so that the American
media actually pays attention.� In other words, to blatantly lie. Nobody >>>> as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...� That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff who were his
handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people at Charleston"
Which of course never happened and anyone can easily check the video or
the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington"� No such thing ever happened.
So much whataboutism!
Are you claiming that immigrants really were eating people's cats? Or
are you claiming that Vance did not admit to making up stories about that?
Neither is true, and false statements by Biden do not make Vance's
stories true.
Biden paid the price. He's no longer president. The current
administration needs to pay the same price, and the sooner, the better.
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first (uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better.� And should have corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing �to create stories so that the American
media actually pays attention.� In other words, to blatantly lie. Nobody >>> as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories... That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people at
Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone can
easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such thing
ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting
Nelson Mandela in prison." Mr Young says it never happened.
Robbins Island is far far away from Soweto, Mr Biden was
never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-biden/joe-bidens-pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free
on a chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
who famously does not extol his philanthropy. Oh, and that
very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH headquarters
space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and supported both
his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:31:08 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 09:53:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 9:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>> then why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a "person" >>>>> is nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be
limited to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
Apply the same logic to� unions, fraternal organizations and political >>>> parties and then think it over.
I'd be willing to apply it to those.
Free speech scares some people, and those types are not just afraid to
see and here it themselves they want to keep everybody else from it
too.
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
I seem to remember that you approved the young folks who ran away to
Canada in terror rather then serve in the Vietnam war...
Strange isn't it you condone cowardice among those you describes as
"not agreeing with the war" and you now condemn a chap who rides his
tricycle alone on a bike path.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there but I am seeing a great
deal of bigotry. "Frank Bigotski" as it were.
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be
limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be
limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the >Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he
is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn�t make those mistakes he
did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >over really!
Roger Merriman
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his >>>permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or >>>competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>>might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve >>>to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about.
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by >>posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe
he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling >>experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years >>commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility
riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer >>traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How
many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How
many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles
in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road >>rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider
event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your
courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski >>https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was
going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I
called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he
posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an >>accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of
countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that
other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no
difference.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it
appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality
as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably
high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and
want people to admire them.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>> might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry
immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about.
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by
posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe
he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling
experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years
commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility
riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer
traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How
many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How
many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles
in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road
rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider
event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your
courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ >>
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was
going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I
called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he
posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an
accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of
countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that
other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no
difference.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it
appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality
as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably
high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and
want people to admire them.
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the >> Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he
is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didnt make those mistakes he >> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all
over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based on
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth
without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first
(uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better. And should have
corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that
the American
media actually pays attention.” In other words, to
blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...
That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of
his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people
at Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone
can easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such
thing ever happened.
So much whataboutism!
Are you claiming that immigrants really were eating people's
cats? Or are you claiming that Vance did not admit to making
up stories about that?
Neither is true, and false statements by Biden do not make
Vance's stories true.
Biden paid the price. He's no longer president. The current
administration needs to pay the same price, and the sooner,
the better.
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the >>> Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those mistakes he >>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming
President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I don�t believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong I�m aware of him
but only loosely.
I suspect he�s rather less of socialist that you think, US politics is
fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look middling >rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based onConsidering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been an unwise >decision.
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >>>>> Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>>> might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve >>>> to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry
immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about.
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by
posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe
he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling
experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years
commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility
riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer
traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How
many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How
many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles
in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road
rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider
event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your
courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ >>>
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was
going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I
called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he
posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an
accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of
countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that
other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no
difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield. >As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it
appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality
as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably
high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and
want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a >tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so.
Roger Merriman
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the >> Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he
is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn’t make those mistakes he >> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all
over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based on
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 07:12:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 17:56:27 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >>>>>> Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his >>>>>permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or >>>>>competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>>>>might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no >>>>>way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve >>>>>to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>>>immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about.
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by >>>>posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe >>>>he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling >>>>experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years >>>>commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility >>>>riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer >>>>traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How >>>>many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How >>>>many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles >>>>in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road >>>>rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider >>>>event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your >>>>courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski >>>>https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ >>>>
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was
going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I
called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he >>>>posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an >>>>accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of >>>countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that >>>other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no >>>difference.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it >>>appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality
as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably
high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and
want people to admire them.
Indeed. His sentence below tells me everything I ever needed to know
all about him.
"That will allow *us* to gauge whether your courage and experience
really are more than mine."
*Emphasis* is mine.
Both are variables and depend largely on the circumstances.
I've written about the little 7 or 8 years old girl I sometime riding
down a toad near my house. Alert, watches out for other traffic,
reasonable speed. Quite obviously experienced riding on her small
country road, although unlikely to be as safe on a major highway.
But of course she wasn't riding on a major highway.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 05:49:00 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:Social Security. Aid to unwed mothers. War on poverty. Food Stamps. Unemployment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the >>> Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn’t make those mistakes he >>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming
President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
Some $717 billion (in 2011) in Federal assistance.
On 4/19/2025 4:49 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a
"person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the >>> Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn�t make those mistakes he >>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming
President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based on
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People see that differently.
I do not discount Mr Sanders' appeal.
Mr Sanders did very well in primaries and seemed poised to
take the democrat party nomination before the Obama wing
interceded by securing Mr Clyburn's 2020 endorsement for Mr
Biden. Whether by threat or favor, that was a complete
surprise and turned the trend.
https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/29/south-carolina-primary-how-clyburn-endorsement-helped-biden-win-big/4918362002/
https://reason.com/2020/05/09/joe-biden-won-the-democratic-primary-but-bernie-sanders-won-the-party/
[note dates in links above]
Because we are a nearly evenly divided nation, the marginal
voter segments are decisive. Those are the generally
disengaged and unmotivated who can be swayed, with
difficulty. Mr Sanders does well with them and also with
much of the various flavors of left.
On 4/19/2025 6:10 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 05:49:00 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:Social Security. Aid to unwed mothers. War on poverty. Food Stamps.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn�t make those mistakes he >>>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming
President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
Unemployment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States
Some $717 billion (in 2011) in Federal assistance.
Which is why our modern Federal government is aptly
described as an insurance company with an army.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 20:03:43 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 07:12:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 17:56:27 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >>>>>>> Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off. >>>>>>
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>>>>> might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no >>>>>> way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve >>>>>> to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>>>> immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about.
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by >>>>> posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe >>>>> he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling
experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years >>>>> commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility
riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer >>>>> traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How
many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How >>>>> many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles >>>>> in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road >>>>> rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider >>>>> event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your
courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was
going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I
called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he
posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an
accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of
countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that
other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no
difference.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it
appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality >>>> as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably
high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and
want people to admire them.
Indeed. His sentence below tells me everything I ever needed to know
all about him.
"That will allow *us* to gauge whether your courage and experience
really are more than mine."
*Emphasis* is mine.
Both are variables and depend largely on the circumstances.
I've written about the little 7 or 8 years old girl I sometime riding
down a toad near my house. Alert, watches out for other traffic,
reasonable speed. Quite obviously experienced riding on her small
country road, although unlikely to be as safe on a major highway.
But of course she wasn't riding on a major highway.
I wouldn't be able to hear my music if I rode on a major highway. It's
bad enough riding next to one.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those mistakes he >>>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming
President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I dont believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong Im aware of him >> but only loosely.
I suspect hes rather less of socialist that you think, US politics is
fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look middling >> rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based onConsidering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been an unwise >> decision.
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that
spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid of
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and
that's why he won.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those mistakes he >>>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming
President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I don’t believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong I’m aware of him
but only loosely.
I suspect he’s rather less of socialist that you think, US politics is
fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look middling >> rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based onConsidering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been an unwise >> decision.
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that
spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid of
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and
that's why he won.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 08:23:00 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/19/2025 4:49 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential
elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn’t make those mistakes he
did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming
President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based on
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People see that differently.
I do not discount Mr Sanders' appeal.
Mr Sanders did very well in primaries and seemed poised to
take the democrat party nomination before the Obama wing
interceded by securing Mr Clyburn's 2020 endorsement for Mr
Biden. Whether by threat or favor, that was a complete
surprise and turned the trend.
https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/29/south-carolina-primary-how-clyburn-endorsement-helped-biden-win-big/4918362002/
https://reason.com/2020/05/09/joe-biden-won-the-democratic-primary-but-bernie-sanders-won-the-party/
[note dates in links above]
Because we are a nearly evenly divided nation, the marginal
voter segments are decisive. Those are the generally
disengaged and unmotivated who can be swayed, with
difficulty. Mr Sanders does well with them and also with
much of the various flavors of left.
Bernie can attract a bunch if left wingers and ignorant group thinkers
who can be attracted to anyone who is not Trump, but he DOA as
Presidential cadidate. More so as he gets older and older.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the Democrats have chance unless
they abandon all the unpopular stuff that they're advocating.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >>>>>>> Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off. >>>>>>
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>>>>> might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no >>>>>> way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve >>>>>> to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>>>> immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about.
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by >>>>> posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe >>>>> he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling
experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years >>>>> commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility
riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer >>>>> traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How
many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How >>>>> many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles >>>>> in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road >>>>> rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider >>>>> event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your
courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was
going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I
called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he
posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an
accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of
countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that
other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no
difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield. >>> As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it
appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality >>>> as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably
high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and
want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a >>> tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so.
Roger Merriman
I can't see that it matters much as to what country you ride your
bicycle in. You mighrt have to know the different laws, but that's
easy to do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The laws are generally fairly uniform and the laws generally are broadly >similar.
It�s more cultural sort of stuff, ie what people expect.
Roger Merriman
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>>>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential >>>>>>> elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was >>>>> should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>>>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those mistakes he >>>>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>>>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming >>>> President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I don?t believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong I?m aware of him >>> but only loosely.
I suspect he?s rather less of socialist that you think, US politics is
fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look middling >>> rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based onConsidering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been an unwise >>> decision.
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that
spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing
Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
No far from it, media this side of the pond which ever way they leaned was >broadly he shouldn�t be running, he should retire and so on.
out of election time generally Americans politics aren�t that closely >followed unless it becomes newsworthy which generally isn�t a good thing!
Might want to fact check what he�s actually done vs what he says!
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid of
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to
reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and
that's why he won.
Roger MerrimanC'est bonRoger Merriman
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/19/2025 8:11 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>>>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential >>>>>>> elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was >>>>> should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>>>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those mistakes he >>>>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>>>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming >>>> President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I don�t believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong I�m aware of him >>> but only loosely.
I suspect he�s rather less of socialist that you think, US politics is
fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look middling >>> rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based onConsidering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been an unwise >>> decision.
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that
spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing
Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid of
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to
reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and
that's why he won.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I am a bit more reserved, being either blessed or cursed
with a fairly good memory.
Mr Reagan set up the Grace Commission, led by the energetic
informed and competent Peter Grace, which wrote an excellent
guide to removing blatant fraud waste and abuse of Federal
expenditures.
https://archive.org/details/GraceCommissionReport
Which naturally accomplished roughly nothing once various
Congressmen discovered the problems were in their districts.
Mr Clinton began a priority domestic policy in early 1993 by
assigning Mr Gore to do the same. Despite apparent sincerity
and the best wishes of taxpayers across the political
spectrum, nothing happened.
I support Mr Trump's posturing, despite his relatively lax
habits in the first term. But in our convoluted actual
system, 'draining the swamp' sounds great until you run into
the swamp's lethal defenses, which are more formidable than
is generally known. I'm hopeful despite corruption's
undefeated track record but I'll wait for results before
celebrating.
On 4/19/2025 8:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 08:23:00 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/19/2025 4:49 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>>>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential >>>>>>> elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was >>>>> should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>>>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn�t make those mistakes he >>>>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>>>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming >>>> President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based on
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
People see that differently.
I do not discount Mr Sanders' appeal.
Mr Sanders did very well in primaries and seemed poised to
take the democrat party nomination before the Obama wing
interceded by securing Mr Clyburn's 2020 endorsement for Mr
Biden. Whether by threat or favor, that was a complete
surprise and turned the trend.
https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/29/south-carolina-primary-how-clyburn-endorsement-helped-biden-win-big/4918362002/
https://reason.com/2020/05/09/joe-biden-won-the-democratic-primary-but-bernie-sanders-won-the-party/
[note dates in links above]
Because we are a nearly evenly divided nation, the marginal
voter segments are decisive. Those are the generally
disengaged and unmotivated who can be swayed, with
difficulty. Mr Sanders does well with them and also with
much of the various flavors of left.
Bernie can attract a bunch if left wingers and ignorant group thinkers
who can be attracted to anyone who is not Trump, but he DOA as
Presidential cadidate. More so as he gets older and older.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the Democrats have chance unless
they abandon all the unpopular stuff that they're advocating.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
In 1956, a supporter yelled out to Mr Stevenson, "Every
thinking American is with you!".
He did not hesitate to reply, "It's not enough, madam. I
need a majority."
(that exchange may be apocryphal but it's oft quoted)
On 4/19/2025 4:34 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:38:50 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >>>>> Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>>> might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve >>>> to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry
immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
I seem to remember that you approved the young folks who ran away to
Canada in terror rather then serve in the Vietnam war...
Strange isn't it you condone cowardice among those you describes as
"not agreeing with the war" and you now condemn a chap who rides his
tricycle alone on a bike path.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there but I am seeing a great
deal of bigotry. "Frank Bigotski" as it were.
Krygowski seems to think riding a bicycle among "people of other
races" is something special to be bragged about.
"Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to
visit a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there."
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Anyone with sufficient experience in conversation with other humans
could tell the "gasp!" and "oh my!" labeled that as sarcasm, meaning my
ride was nothing scary at all.
Those who habitually avoid speaking to others are understandably confused.
Let's remember that before I retired, I rode my bike to and from work
through the inner city very, very frequently. Including <gasp!> at
night. ;-)
On 4/19/2025 4:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
No, it was his lying and bragging that set me off. I hate liars and
braggarts. His calling me a coward was just him projecting. He knows
I'm not a coward and he is ashamed of being a wussie school teacher
and never doing anything that required the tiniest bit of courge.
Bullshit. You were "set off" after I disagreed with your claim that
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe" - which is
a clear and obvious statement of fear.
I then said "That does not mean you must ride on roads. If you lack the >competence or minimal courage and are unwilling to learn, keep trucking
your pedal vehicle to a bike path and riding back and forth. That's too >boring for me, but maybe someday I'll be in the same state. Although I
hope not."
Here, I found the relevant thread: >https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qYtFPpL3AAAJ
Pointing out your fears and limitations triggered you. After that, you
acted like a pissy fourth-grade girl, and weirdly decided that snarking
at nearly every one of my posts was somehow going to punish me - which
is just laughable! Instead, it just makes you look petty.
IIRC, all this was before we learned you're afraid to ride even quiet >suburban bike trails without a loaded and chambered handgun within quick >reach. That's the furthest thing from bravery.
On 4/19/2025 10:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I am a bit more reserved [about Trump], being either blessed or cursed with a fairly
good memory.
Mr Reagan set up the Grace Commission, led by the energetic informed and
competent Peter Grace, which wrote an excellent guide to removing
blatant fraud waste and abuse of Federal expenditures.
https://archive.org/details/GraceCommissionReport
Which naturally accomplished roughly nothing once various Congressmen
discovered the problems were in their districts.
Mr Clinton began a priority domestic policy in early 1993 by assigning
Mr Gore to do the same. Despite apparent sincerity and the best wishes
of taxpayers across the political spectrum, nothing happened.
Double check your memory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration
"Below are the budgetary results for President Clinton's two terms in
office:
He had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998�2001, the only such
years from 1970 to 2023. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced
budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget.
The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of
U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held
by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 >periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.
Federal spending fell from 20.7% GDP in 1993 to 17.6% GDP in 2000,
below the historical average (1966 to 2015) of 20.2% GDP.
Tax revenues rose steadily from 17.0% GDP in 1993 to 20.0% GDP in
2000, well above the historical average of 17.4% GDP.
Defense spending fell from 4.3% GDP in 1993 to 2.9% GDP by 2000, as
the U.S. enjoyed a "peace dividend" in the wake of the fall of the
Soviet Union. In dollar terms, defense spending fell from $292B in 1993
to $266B by 1996, then slowly rose to $295 billion by 2000..."
Oh, and from >https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-clinton-initiative-cut-140000196.html
"[Did] Clinton initiative cut over 377K federal jobs in the 1990s - True
- During his time in office, U.S. President Bill Clinton oversaw the >termination of 377,000 federal employees."
Thing was, his administration did it via rational methods - by studying
the structure of government organizations, by getting both parties on
board, by offering buyouts to the employees it strategically wanted to
trim. Trump's (or rather, unelected Musk's) approach is instead to send
young boy hackers in to disable important and productive agencies at
random, plus simultaneously suck up whatever data they can. All without
the approval of congress.
I support Mr Trump's posturing, despite his relatively lax habits in the
first term.� But in our convoluted actual system, 'draining the swamp'
sounds great until you run into the swamp's lethal defenses...
"Draining the swamp" is simplistic nonsense. Biologically, many if not
most swamps provide valuable functions. They support beneficial
ecosystems, they filter water or protect coastlines, etc. Those ignorant
of biology see swamps as just useless mud.
Those ignorant of administration see government agencies as just useless >bureaucracies - doing worthless stuff like medical research, vaccination >programs, pollution monitoring, feeding hungry kids, promoting education...
On 4/19/2025 11:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:39:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/19/2025 4:34 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:38:50 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >>>>>>> Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off. >>>>>>
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>>>>> might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no >>>>>> way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve >>>>>> to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>>>> immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
I seem to remember that you approved the young folks who ran away to >>>>> Canada in terror rather then serve in the Vietnam war...
Strange isn't it you condone cowardice among those you describes as
"not agreeing with the war" and you now condemn a chap who rides his >>>>> tricycle alone on a bike path.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there but I am seeing a great >>>>> deal of bigotry. "Frank Bigotski" as it were.
Krygowski seems to think riding a bicycle among "people of other
races" is something special to be bragged about.
"Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to
visit a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!> >>>> ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there."
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Anyone with sufficient experience in conversation with other humans
could tell the "gasp!" and "oh my!" labeled that as sarcasm, meaning my
ride was nothing scary at all.
Those who habitually avoid speaking to others are understandably confused. >>>
Let's remember that before I retired, I rode my bike to and from work
through the inner city very, very frequently. Including <gasp!> at
night. ;-)
Riding where people of other races live is not significant to mention
for us non bigots... I do it on most every ride... and walk. I don't
live in a lilly-white neighborhood like you do.
Back when I was growing up many of the kids I hung out with were black
because there was a mostly black neighborhood adjoining our farm. My
mother taught school and had many of those kids in her classes. I'd
have been punished had I ever shown the bigotry you have.
....neither is riding at night significant. I've also done it many
times throughout my long history of bike riding... and no, that was
all back before I carried a gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Riding near other races? Troglodytes? Extraterrestrials?
Zombies? Yikes! Riding among humans is scary enough!
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:39:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/19/2025 4:34 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:38:50 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >>>>>> Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding >>>>> might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no >>>>> way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve >>>>> to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry
immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
I seem to remember that you approved the young folks who ran away to
Canada in terror rather then serve in the Vietnam war...
Strange isn't it you condone cowardice among those you describes as
"not agreeing with the war" and you now condemn a chap who rides his
tricycle alone on a bike path.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there but I am seeing a great
deal of bigotry. "Frank Bigotski" as it were.
Krygowski seems to think riding a bicycle among "people of other
races" is something special to be bragged about.
"Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to
visit a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there."
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Anyone with sufficient experience in conversation with other humans
could tell the "gasp!" and "oh my!" labeled that as sarcasm, meaning my
ride was nothing scary at all.
Those who habitually avoid speaking to others are understandably confused. >>
Let's remember that before I retired, I rode my bike to and from work
through the inner city very, very frequently. Including <gasp!> at
night. ;-)
Riding where people of other races live is not significant to mention
for us non bigots... I do it on most every ride... and walk. I don't
live in a lilly-white neighborhood like you do.
Back when I was growing up many of the kids I hung out with were black because there was a mostly black neighborhood adjoining our farm. My
mother taught school and had many of those kids in her classes. I'd
have been punished had I ever shown the bigotry you have.
....neither is riding at night significant. I've also done it many
times throughout my long history of bike riding... and no, that was
all back before I carried a gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 19 Apr 2025 14:17:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his >>>>>>> permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >>>>>>>> Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off. >>>>>>>
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or >>>>>>> competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding
might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no >>>>>>> way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve >>>>>>> to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>>>>> immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about. >>>>>>
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by >>>>>> posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe >>>>>> he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling >>>>>> experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years >>>>>> commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility
riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer >>>>>> traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How >>>>>> many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How >>>>>> many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles >>>>>> in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road >>>>>> rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider >>>>>> event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your >>>>>> courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was
going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I
called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he >>>>>> posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an
accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of
countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that >>>>> other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no
difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield.
As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it >>>>> appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality >>>>> as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably
high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and >>>>> want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a >>>> tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so.
Roger Merriman
I can't see that it matters much as to what country you ride your
bicycle in. You mighrt have to know the different laws, but that's
easy to do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The laws are generally fairly uniform and the laws generally are broadly
similar.
Its more cultural sort of stuff, ie what people expect.
Roger Merriman
I don't need a bicycle to do that. Actually, I believe a bicycle would
be a hindrance when touring someplace I'd never been before. They move
either too fast or too slow. Too fast to interact with people, and too
slow to move from place to place.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 14:17:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his >>>>>>>> permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but >>>>>>>>> Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off. >>>>>>>>
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or >>>>>>>> competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding
might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no >>>>>>>> way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>>>>>> immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about. >>>>>>>
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by >>>>>>> posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe >>>>>>> he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling >>>>>>> experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years >>>>>>> commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility >>>>>>> riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer >>>>>>> traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How >>>>>>> many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How >>>>>>> many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles >>>>>>> in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road >>>>>>> rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider >>>>>>> event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your >>>>>>> courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was >>>>>>> going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I >>>>>>> called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he >>>>>>> posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an
accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of >>>>>> countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that >>>>>> other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no
difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield.
As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it >>>>>> appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality >>>>>> as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably >>>>>> high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and >>>>>> want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a >>>>> tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so.
Roger Merriman
I can't see that it matters much as to what country you ride your
bicycle in. You mighrt have to know the different laws, but that's
easy to do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The laws are generally fairly uniform and the laws generally are broadly >>> similar.
It?s more cultural sort of stuff, ie what people expect.
Roger Merriman
I don't need a bicycle to do that. Actually, I believe a bicycle would
be a hindrance when touring someplace I'd never been before. They move
either too fast or too slow. Too fast to interact with people, and too
slow to move from place to place.
Bikes are absolutely not too fast to interact with people, depending on the >ride I�d have a possibility of encountering dog or otherwise walkers, Horse >riders, other cyclists.
Yes I�m unlikely to chat to someone as a plummet of the side of hill, but >it�s quite likely that I�d chat if very briefly at some point on the ride >unless it�s a one of the MTB rides into the hills ie remote areas.
Maybe bike touring doesn�t appeal? Fine but clearly bikes are kinda human >level travel.
On 4/19/2025 10:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I am a bit more reserved [about Trump], being either
blessed or cursed with a fairly good memory.
Mr Reagan set up the Grace Commission, led by the
energetic informed and competent Peter Grace, which wrote
an excellent guide to removing blatant fraud waste and
abuse of Federal expenditures.
https://archive.org/details/GraceCommissionReport
Which naturally accomplished roughly nothing once various
Congressmen discovered the problems were in their districts.
Mr Clinton began a priority domestic policy in early 1993
by assigning Mr Gore to do the same. Despite apparent
sincerity and the best wishes of taxpayers across the
political spectrum, nothing happened.
Double check your memory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration
"Below are the budgetary results for President Clinton's two
terms in office:
He had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998–2001, the
only such years from 1970 to 2023. Clinton's final four
budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with
the 1997 budget.
The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary
measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to
33.6% by 2000. Debt held by the public was actually paid
down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only
time this happened between 1970 and 2018.
Federal spending fell from 20.7% GDP in 1993 to 17.6%
GDP in 2000, below the historical average (1966 to 2015) of
20.2% GDP.
Tax revenues rose steadily from 17.0% GDP in 1993 to
20.0% GDP in 2000, well above the historical average of
17.4% GDP.
Defense spending fell from 4.3% GDP in 1993 to 2.9% GDP
by 2000, as the U.S. enjoyed a "peace dividend" in the wake
of the fall of the Soviet Union. In dollar terms, defense
spending fell from $292B in 1993 to $266B by 1996, then
slowly rose to $295 billion by 2000..."
Oh, and from https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-clinton- initiative-cut-140000196.html
"[Did] Clinton initiative cut over 377K federal jobs in the
1990s - True - During his time in office, U.S. President
Bill Clinton oversaw the termination of 377,000 federal
employees."
Thing was, his administration did it via rational methods -
by studying the structure of government organizations, by
getting both parties on board, by offering buyouts to the
employees it strategically wanted to trim. Trump's (or
rather, unelected Musk's) approach is instead to send young
boy hackers in to disable important and productive agencies
at random, plus simultaneously suck up whatever data they
can. All without the approval of congress.
I support Mr Trump's posturing, despite his relatively lax
habits in the first term. But in our convoluted actual
system, 'draining the swamp' sounds great until you run
into the swamp's lethal defenses...
"Draining the swamp" is simplistic nonsense. Biologically,
many if not most swamps provide valuable functions. They
support beneficial ecosystems, they filter water or protect
coastlines, etc. Those ignorant of biology see swamps as
just useless mud.
Those ignorant of administration see government agencies as
just useless bureaucracies - doing worthless stuff like
medical research, vaccination programs, pollution
monitoring, feeding hungry kids, promoting education...
On 4/19/2025 12:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:58:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/19/2025 4:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
No, it was his lying and bragging that set me off. I hate liars and
braggarts. His calling me a coward was just him projecting. He knows
I'm not a coward and he is ashamed of being a wussie school teacher
and never doing anything that required the tiniest bit of courge.
Bullshit. You were "set off" after I disagreed with your claim that
"Nothing can make bicycling among truck and car traffic safe" - which is >>> a clear and obvious statement of fear.
I then said "That does not mean you must ride on roads. If you lack the
competence or minimal courage and are unwilling to learn, keep trucking
your pedal vehicle to a bike path and riding back and forth. That's too
boring for me, but maybe someday I'll be in the same state. Although I
hope not."
Here, I found the relevant thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qYtFPpL3AAAJ >>>
Pointing out your fears and limitations triggered you. After that, you
acted like a pissy fourth-grade girl, and weirdly decided that snarking
at nearly every one of my posts was somehow going to punish me - which
is just laughable! Instead, it just makes you look petty.
IIRC, all this was before we learned you're afraid to ride even quiet
suburban bike trails without a loaded and chambered handgun within quick >>> reach. That's the furthest thing from bravery.
My bicyling habits have a permanent place in Krygowski's head.
:-) Says the obsessive man who whines about almost every post I make!
I brought up the above only to explain what set our timid tricyclist
into such a permanent snit. I generally ignore him. I prefer
interactions with people of higher intelligence.
And those with more courage. ;-)
On 4/19/2025 1:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 12:31:17 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Riding near other races? Troglodytes? Extraterrestrials?
Zombies? Yikes!
"Troglodytes" are "cave dwellers." We've met some! In France (near
Amboise, IIRC) we rented a lovely Chambre d'Hote that was carved into a >cliff. https://www.amboisetroglodyte.com/ The owner was very sweet, and >certainly qualified as a troglodyte.
As to the others: I'm sure extraterrestrials would be a different
species. And zombies? I don't know what you call a person from a
different reality.
Riding among humans is scary enough!
+1
Unfortunately, they're hard to avoid.
:-) And there we have it again! So much fear!
Most of us are not afraid of riding among other humans. Doing so
requires only the tiniest amount of courage.
On 4/19/2025 2:24 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
I believe a bicycle would
be a hindrance when touring someplace I'd never been before. They move
either too fast or too slow. Too fast to interact with people, and too
slow to move from place to place.
Bikes are absolutely not too fast to interact with people, depending on the >> ride I�d have a possibility of encountering dog or otherwise walkers, Horse >> riders, other cyclists.
Mr. Tricycle does have a strange notion about bicycling interfering with >interactions with others. More evidence of gross inexperience, I'd say.
It's trivially easy to stop for conversation, or slow to someone's
walking pace and converse with them as they walk. For most people it's
not at all unusual.
On 19 Apr 2025 18:24:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 14:17:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his >>>>>>>>> permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off. >>>>>>>>>
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or >>>>>>>>> competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding
might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no >>>>>>>>> way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>>>>>>> immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about. >>>>>>>>
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by >>>>>>>> posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe >>>>>>>> he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling >>>>>>>> experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years >>>>>>>> commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility >>>>>>>> riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer >>>>>>>> traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How >>>>>>>> many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How >>>>>>>> many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles >>>>>>>> in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road >>>>>>>> rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider >>>>>>>> event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your >>>>>>>> courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was >>>>>>>> going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I >>>>>>>> called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he >>>>>>>> posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an >>>>>>>> accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of >>>>>>> countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that >>>>>>> other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no >>>>>>> difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield.
As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it >>>>>>> appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality >>>>>>> as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably >>>>>>> high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and >>>>>>> want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a >>>>>> tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so.
Roger Merriman
I can't see that it matters much as to what country you ride your
bicycle in. You mighrt have to know the different laws, but that's
easy to do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The laws are generally fairly uniform and the laws generally are broadly >>>> similar.
It?s more cultural sort of stuff, ie what people expect.
Roger Merriman
I don't need a bicycle to do that. Actually, I believe a bicycle would
be a hindrance when touring someplace I'd never been before. They move
either too fast or too slow. Too fast to interact with people, and too
slow to move from place to place.
Bikes are absolutely not too fast to interact with people, depending on the >> ride Id have a possibility of encountering dog or otherwise walkers, Horse >> riders, other cyclists.
And you stop and talk to them just the same as if you were just
walking? I don't.. I doubt you do either..
Yes Im unlikely to chat to someone as a plummet of the side of hill, but >> its quite likely that Id chat if very briefly at some point on the ride >> unless its a one of the MTB rides into the hills ie remote areas.
Maybe bike touring doesnt appeal? Fine but clearly bikes are kinda human >> level travel.
I've done a lot of walking around in Caribbean countries. I met and
talked to a lot of people. When I was sailing, I had a bicycle along
with me, but it was only useful for transpiration. When I wanted to go
out and about and meet the locals, which I was eager to do, I went for
walks. My meager high school and college level Spanish improved
dramatically on those walks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 18:24:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 14:17:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his >>>>>>>>>> permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off. >>>>>>>>>>
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or >>>>>>>>>> competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding
might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>>>>>>>> immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about. >>>>>>>>>
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by
posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe >>>>>>>>> he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling >>>>>>>>> experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years >>>>>>>>> commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility >>>>>>>>> riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer >>>>>>>>> traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How >>>>>>>>> many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How >>>>>>>>> many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles
in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road >>>>>>>>> rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider >>>>>>>>> event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your >>>>>>>>> courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was >>>>>>>>> going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I >>>>>>>>> called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he >>>>>>>>> posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an >>>>>>>>> accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of >>>>>>>> countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that >>>>>>>> other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no >>>>>>>> difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield.
As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it >>>>>>>> appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality >>>>>>>> as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably >>>>>>>> high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and >>>>>>>> want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a
tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so.
Roger Merriman
I can't see that it matters much as to what country you ride your
bicycle in. You mighrt have to know the different laws, but that's >>>>>> easy to do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The laws are generally fairly uniform and the laws generally are broadly >>>>> similar.
It?s more cultural sort of stuff, ie what people expect.
Roger Merriman
I don't need a bicycle to do that. Actually, I believe a bicycle would >>>> be a hindrance when touring someplace I'd never been before. They move >>>> either too fast or too slow. Too fast to interact with people, and too >>>> slow to move from place to place.
Bikes are absolutely not too fast to interact with people, depending on the >>> ride I?d have a possibility of encountering dog or otherwise walkers, Horse >>> riders, other cyclists.
And you stop and talk to them just the same as if you were just
walking? I don't.. I doubt you do either..
At the speeds i meeting folks on the trails it�s really not needed, these
are just minor good mornings, nice dog/horse/child interaction not setting >the world to rights over a drink!
Bikes are the fastest thing often and well I�ll need to not blast past >dogs/kids/horses.
Roger Merriman
Yes I?m unlikely to chat to someone as a plummet of the side of hill, but >>> it?s quite likely that I?d chat if very briefly at some point on the ride >>> unless it?s a one of the MTB rides into the hills ie remote areas.
Maybe bike touring doesn?t appeal? Fine but clearly bikes are kinda human >>> level travel.
I've done a lot of walking around in Caribbean countries. I met and
talked to a lot of people. When I was sailing, I had a bicycle along
with me, but it was only useful for transpiration. When I wanted to go
out and about and meet the locals, which I was eager to do, I went for
walks. My meager high school and college level Spanish improved
dramatically on those walks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/17/2025 8:18 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
zen cycle <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/15/2025 5:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:[ ... ]
No, it is not. Coronaviruses are not influenza.Once again, covid, not flu.
Covid _is_ influenza.
No, it does not.It's like you don't read what you're
attempting to respond to.
More like you didn't specify seasonal flu, you said "flu", which
includes covid.
I stand corrected.
However.....
On 4/16/2025 6:10 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/15/2025 5:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Interesting. I didn't see any information on flu shots, except for one
sentence including them among vaccinations that save lives. That's
almost evidence that European nations *don't* require flu shots for
toddlers.
OK, here ya go:
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/seasonal-influenza/prevention-and-control/
seasonal-influenza-vaccines
"Vaccination is especially important for people at higher risk of
serious influenza complications: individuals with specific chronic
medical conditions, pregnant women, children aged 6-59 months, the
elderly and healthcare workers."
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/16/2025 4:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class
suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft
left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after
that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the
cloth masks were worthless and that the six foot rule came out of thin >>>>> air. The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most >>>>> vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience.
I agree it's a popular custom. but the size of viruses and the pores
of masks make that theater at best.
If you can breathe without difficulty and if it's not well sealed at
the edges, you're not blocking viruses.
If you have any facial hair between skin and mask, it's not blocking
viruses. If you can smell anything with the mask on, it's not blocking
viruses.
OSHA has a fit test partly based on trying to smell banana oil:
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA >>
I hear it's fairly difficult to pass.
Not particularly assuming the mask fits your face, might need to adjust
nose part/straps.
The paper ones are less effective but seem to be enough to dramatically reduce winter colds/flu cases, as small as a virus is it’s transmission is via droplets so the mask will stop/reduce.
Roger Merriman
Regular hospital masks can be and probably are effective for bacteria
but the size scales are radically different for viruses.
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/16/2025 4:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, Catrike RyderI agree it's a popular custom. but the size of viruses and the pores
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment >>>>> that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore,
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>> left. (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics) It was unusual
before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains
constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies
and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams >>>>>>>> (masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules, >>>>>>> that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the >>>>>> cloth masks were worthless and that the six foot rule came out of thin >>>>>> air. The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most >>>>>> vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and
mirrors.
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience. >>>>
of masks make that theater at best.
If you can breathe without difficulty and if it's not well sealed at
the edges, you're not blocking viruses.
If you have any facial hair between skin and mask, it's not blocking
viruses. If you can smell anything with the mask on, it's not blocking
viruses.
OSHA has a fit test partly based on trying to smell banana oil:
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA >>>
I hear it's fairly difficult to pass.
Not particularly assuming the mask fits your face, might need to adjust
nose part/straps.
Have you done this as part of a job? I speak from hearsay, never having actually done the test.
The paper ones are less effective but seem to be enough to dramatically
reduce winter colds/flu cases, as small as a virus is it’s transmission is >> via droplets so the mask will stop/reduce.
Roger Merriman
Regular hospital masks can be and probably are effective for bacteria
but the size scales are radically different for viruses.
On 19 Apr 2025 22:22:34 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 18:24:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 14:17:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his >>>>>>>>>>> permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off. >>>>>>>>>>>
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or >>>>>>>>>>> competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding
might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry >>>>>>>>>>> immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about. >>>>>>>>>>
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by
posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe >>>>>>>>>> he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling >>>>>>>>>> experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years >>>>>>>>>> commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility >>>>>>>>>> riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer >>>>>>>>>> traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How >>>>>>>>>> many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How >>>>>>>>>> many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles
in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road
rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider >>>>>>>>>> event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your >>>>>>>>>> courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was >>>>>>>>>> going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I >>>>>>>>>> called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he >>>>>>>>>> posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an >>>>>>>>>> accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of >>>>>>>>> countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that >>>>>>>>> other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no >>>>>>>>> difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield.
As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it >>>>>>>>> appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self
gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality
as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably >>>>>>>>> high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and >>>>>>>>> want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a
tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so.
Roger Merriman
I can't see that it matters much as to what country you ride your >>>>>>> bicycle in. You mighrt have to know the different laws, but that's >>>>>>> easy to do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The laws are generally fairly uniform and the laws generally are broadly >>>>>> similar.
It?s more cultural sort of stuff, ie what people expect.
Roger Merriman
I don't need a bicycle to do that. Actually, I believe a bicycle would >>>>> be a hindrance when touring someplace I'd never been before. They move >>>>> either too fast or too slow. Too fast to interact with people, and too >>>>> slow to move from place to place.
Bikes are absolutely not too fast to interact with people, depending on the
ride I?d have a possibility of encountering dog or otherwise walkers, Horse
riders, other cyclists.
And you stop and talk to them just the same as if you were just
walking? I don't.. I doubt you do either..
At the speeds i meeting folks on the trails its really not needed, these >> are just minor good mornings, nice dog/horse/child interaction not setting >> the world to rights over a drink!
Bikes are the fastest thing often and well Ill need to not blast past
dogs/kids/horses.
Roger Merriman
Yes I?m unlikely to chat to someone as a plummet of the side of hill, but >>>> it?s quite likely that I?d chat if very briefly at some point on the ride >>>> unless it?s a one of the MTB rides into the hills ie remote areas.
Maybe bike touring doesn?t appeal? Fine but clearly bikes are kinda human >>>> level travel.
I've done a lot of walking around in Caribbean countries. I met and
talked to a lot of people. When I was sailing, I had a bicycle along
with me, but it was only useful for transpiration. When I wanted to go
out and about and meet the locals, which I was eager to do, I went for
walks. My meager high school and college level Spanish improved
dramatically on those walks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
When I'm in a different culture I like to get involved in that
culture, far away from the tourist traps. I want to ask questions and
talk about our different cultures, food, and lifestyles. That can't be
done with a simple good morning. That can't be done when you're riding
around on a bicycle.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 21 Apr 2025 07:43:20 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Merriman <[email protected]> writes:
Radey Shouman <[email protected]> wrote:
AMuzi <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/16/2025 4:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 04:16:27 -0400, Catrike RyderI agree it's a popular custom. but the size of viruses and the pores >>>>>> of masks make that theater at best.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:02:16 +0700, John B. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:I have no idea what Mr Fauci said about anything but I would comment >>>>>>> that doctors and medical staff wear them in Thailand, Singapore, >>>>>>> Indonesia, and medical evacuation airplanes to my personal experience. >>>>>>
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:46:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:20:51 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/15/2025 12:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/15/2025 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But here, the rise in anti-vax was driven by upper class >>>>>>>>>>>>> suburban mothers and Hollywood celebrities who skew soft >>>>>>>>>>>>> left.� (as with any social phenomenon there are of course >>>>>>>>>>>>> many flavors of opinion and politics)� It was unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>> before that quack Wakefield (1998?) but snowballed after >>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
The anti-vax movement was driven by ignorant anti-
scientists. Yes, it's bounced around the political spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>> but the often deliberate ignorance has been and remains >>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
Yes, I agree with that. Wasn't helped by deliberate lies >>>>>>>>>>> and not only by Wakefield.
I submitted to two doses of the Covid "vaccine," and then I realised >>>>>>>>>> that the jackass who was directing it (Fauci) and all the other scams
(masks and six foot spaces) was partially responsible for creating >>>>>>>>>> Covid.
Strange isn't it. The vigorous enforcement, of exactly the same rules,
that you describe, were blamed for Thailand's rather amazingly low >>>>>>>>> Covid rates and deaths..
U.S. Total cases per 1 million population - 337,912
Total Deaths per 1 M population - 3685
Thailand Total cases per 1 million population - 68,069
Total deaths per 1 M population - 494
I suspect there were many factors involved. Fauci admitted that the >>>>>>>> cloth masks were worthless and that the six foot rule came out of thin >>>>>>>> air. The places in the USA that had the strictest rules and the most >>>>>>>> vigorous enforcement faired no better. IMO, it was all smoke and >>>>>>>> mirrors.
FWIW my wife and I got Covid even after taking the vaccine.
If you can breathe without difficulty and if it's not well sealed at >>>>>> the edges, you're not blocking viruses.
If you have any facial hair between skin and mask, it's not blocking >>>>> viruses. If you can smell anything with the mask on, it's not blocking >>>>> viruses.
OSHA has a fit test partly based on trying to smell banana oil:
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA
I hear it's fairly difficult to pass.
Not particularly assuming the mask fits your face, might need to adjust >>>> nose part/straps.
Have you done this as part of a job? I speak from hearsay, never having >>> actually done the test.
Indeed I work in care health sector etc. more problems with folks with >>smaller faces, ie some petite women, but that�s really a case of getting >>the straps tighter.
Roger Merriman
The paper ones are less effective but seem to be enough to dramatically >>>> reduce winter colds/flu cases, as small as a virus is it�s transmission is >>>> via droplets so the mask will stop/reduce.
Roger Merriman
Regular hospital masks can be and probably are effective for bacteria >>>>>> but the size scales are radically different for viruses.
https://wirestock.io/content/media/a-cute-little-thai-girl-in-a-protective-face-mask-carrying-flowers-2671824
)-}
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 22:22:34 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 18:24:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 14:17:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his >>>>>>>>>>>> permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward."
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off. >>>>>>>>>>>>
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or >>>>>>>>>>>> competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding
might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry
immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about. >>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by
posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe
he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling >>>>>>>>>>> experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years
commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility >>>>>>>>>>> riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer
traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How >>>>>>>>>>> many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How
many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles
in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road
rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider
event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your >>>>>>>>>>> courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was >>>>>>>>>>> going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I >>>>>>>>>>> called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he >>>>>>>>>>> posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an >>>>>>>>>>> accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of >>>>>>>>>> countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that >>>>>>>>>> other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no >>>>>>>>>> difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield.
As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it
appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self >>>>>>>>>> gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality
as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably >>>>>>>>>> high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and >>>>>>>>>> want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a
tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so. >>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
I can't see that it matters much as to what country you ride your >>>>>>>> bicycle in. You mighrt have to know the different laws, but that's >>>>>>>> easy to do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The laws are generally fairly uniform and the laws generally are broadly
similar.
It?s more cultural sort of stuff, ie what people expect.
Roger Merriman
I don't need a bicycle to do that. Actually, I believe a bicycle would >>>>>> be a hindrance when touring someplace I'd never been before. They move >>>>>> either too fast or too slow. Too fast to interact with people, and too >>>>>> slow to move from place to place.
Bikes are absolutely not too fast to interact with people, depending on the
ride I?d have a possibility of encountering dog or otherwise walkers, Horse
riders, other cyclists.
And you stop and talk to them just the same as if you were just
walking? I don't.. I doubt you do either..
At the speeds i meeting folks on the trails it?s really not needed, these >>> are just minor good mornings, nice dog/horse/child interaction not setting >>> the world to rights over a drink!
Bikes are the fastest thing often and well I?ll need to not blast past
dogs/kids/horses.
Roger Merriman
Yes I?m unlikely to chat to someone as a plummet of the side of hill, but >>>>> it?s quite likely that I?d chat if very briefly at some point on the ride >>>>> unless it?s a one of the MTB rides into the hills ie remote areas.
Maybe bike touring doesn?t appeal? Fine but clearly bikes are kinda human >>>>> level travel.
I've done a lot of walking around in Caribbean countries. I met and
talked to a lot of people. When I was sailing, I had a bicycle along
with me, but it was only useful for transpiration. When I wanted to go >>>> out and about and meet the locals, which I was eager to do, I went for >>>> walks. My meager high school and college level Spanish improved
dramatically on those walks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
When I'm in a different culture I like to get involved in that
culture, far away from the tourist traps. I want to ask questions and
talk about our different cultures, food, and lifestyles. That can't be
done with a simple good morning. That can't be done when you're riding
around on a bicycle.
A) as with most tourists traps, there is often if not always the locals >cafe/bars etc just around the corner if one is remotely observant.
B) which ever mode of travel one assumes to talk in a more expanded manner, >probably does require stopping which can be done by most forms of travel >though bike/hiking etc are much more human level of interaction.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/19/2025 10:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>>>>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do),
then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential >>>>>>>> elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was >>>>>> should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he
is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those mistakes he
did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all
over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the >>>>> Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming >>>>> President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I don?t believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong I?m aware of him >>>> but only loosely.
I suspect he?s rather less of socialist that you think, US politics is >>>> fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look middling
rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based onConsidering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been an unwise >>>> decision.
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the >>>>> even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that
spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing
Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
No far from it, media this side of the pond which ever way they leaned was >> broadly he shouldn�t be running, he should retire and so on.
out of election time generally Americans politics aren�t that closely
followed unless it becomes newsworthy which generally isn�t a good thing! >>>
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid ofMight want to fact check what he�s actually done vs what he says!
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to
reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and
that's why he won.
Nope, that would pop his little magatard bubble.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 08:18:03 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/19/2025 10:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do),
then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential >>>>>>>>> elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the >>>>>>>> irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was >>>>>>> should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he
is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those mistakes he
did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all
over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the >>>>>> GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the >>>>>> Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self >>>>>> described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming >>>>>> President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I don?t believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong I?m aware of him >>>>> but only loosely.
I suspect he?s rather less of socialist that you think, US politics is >>>>> fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look middling
rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based on >>>>>> what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the >>>>>> even more disgusting nature of his opposition.Considering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been an unwise
decision.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that
spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing
Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
No far from it, media this side of the pond which ever way they leaned was >>> broadly he shouldn’t be running, he should retire and so on.
out of election time generally Americans politics aren’t that closely
followed unless it becomes newsworthy which generally isn’t a good thing! >>>>
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid ofMight want to fact check what he’s actually done vs what he says!
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to
reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and
that's why he won.
Nope, that would pop his little magatard bubble.
Apparently, Junior is still getting his news from the same liars who
told him that told him that Joe Biden was mentally and emotionally
sharp as a tack.
As for what Trump is doing... I support his efforts to shut down the
border, ship illegals out of the country, use tariffs just as most
other countries do, and reduce the wasteful spending that's already
created a huge national debt.
I don't know if it will do any good, but at least he's trying to fix
things.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and folks who >>>>> are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign >>>>>>>>>>>> contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), >>>>>>>>>>> then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind? >>>>>>>>>>>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that >>>>>>>>>>> corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential >>>>>>>>> campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential >>>>>>> elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was >>>>> should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and faults he >>>>> is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those mistakes he >>>>> did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is him all >>>>> over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming >>>> President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I dont believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong Im aware of him >>> but only loosely.
I suspect hes rather less of socialist that you think, US politics is
fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look middling >>> rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based onConsidering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been an unwise >>> decision.
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that
spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing
Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
No far from it, media this side of the pond which ever way they leaned was broadly he shouldn’t be running, he should retire and so on.
out of election time generally Americans politics aren’t that closely followed unless it becomes newsworthy which generally isn’t a good thing!
Might want to fact check what he’s actually done vs what he says!
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid of
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to
reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and
that's why he won.
Roger Merriman--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/19/2025 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2025 10:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I am a bit more reserved [about Trump], being either blessed or
cursed with a fairly good memory.
Mr Reagan set up the Grace Commission, led by the energetic informed
and competent Peter Grace, which wrote an excellent guide to removing
blatant fraud waste and abuse of Federal expenditures.
https://archive.org/details/GraceCommissionReport
Which naturally accomplished roughly nothing once various Congressmen
discovered the problems were in their districts.
Mr Clinton began a priority domestic policy in early 1993 by
assigning Mr Gore to do the same. Despite apparent sincerity and the
best wishes of taxpayers across the political spectrum, nothing
happened.
Double check your memory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration
"Below are the budgetary results for President Clinton's two terms in
office:
He had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998–2001, the only such >> years from 1970 to 2023. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced
budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget.
The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of >> U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held
by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the
1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.
Federal spending fell from 20.7% GDP in 1993 to 17.6% GDP in
2000, below the historical average (1966 to 2015) of 20.2% GDP.
Tax revenues rose steadily from 17.0% GDP in 1993 to 20.0% GDP in >> 2000, well above the historical average of 17.4% GDP.
Defense spending fell from 4.3% GDP in 1993 to 2.9% GDP by 2000,
as the U.S. enjoyed a "peace dividend" in the wake of the fall of the
Soviet Union. In dollar terms, defense spending fell from $292B in
1993 to $266B by 1996, then slowly rose to $295 billion by 2000..."
Oh, and from https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-clinton-
initiative-cut-140000196.html
"[Did] Clinton initiative cut over 377K federal jobs in the 1990s -
True - During his time in office, U.S. President Bill Clinton oversaw
the termination of 377,000 federal employees."
Thing was, his administration did it via rational methods - by
studying the structure of government organizations, by getting both
parties on board, by offering buyouts to the employees it
strategically wanted to trim. Trump's (or rather, unelected Musk's)
approach is instead to send young boy hackers in to disable important
and productive agencies at random, plus simultaneously suck up
whatever data they can. All without the approval of congress.
I support Mr Trump's posturing, despite his relatively lax habits in
the first term. But in our convoluted actual system, 'draining the
swamp' sounds great until you run into the swamp's lethal defenses...
"Draining the swamp" is simplistic nonsense. Biologically, many if not
most swamps provide valuable functions. They support beneficial
ecosystems, they filter water or protect coastlines, etc. Those
ignorant of biology see swamps as just useless mud.
Those ignorant of administration see government agencies as just
useless bureaucracies - doing worthless stuff like medical research,
vaccination programs, pollution monitoring, feeding hungry kids,
promoting education...
Mr Clinton's second term, while positive in that regard as you note, was mostly unrelated to Mr Gore's first term mission. The results were
positive, as we agree.
Large effects included the successful closing of many surplus military
bases directed by the Base Closure Commission which amazingly did close redundant bases in 1995 after an 8 year fight.
https://congressionalresearch.com/97-305/document.php
And Mr Gingrich's valuable assist on reduced spending.
On 4/19/2025 8:11 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate >>>>>>>>>>>> campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I
absolutely do),
then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like >>>>>>>>>>> mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) >>>>>>>>>>> that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their >>>>>>>>>>> composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be >>>>>>>>>> limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024
Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential >>>>>>> elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
folks who
are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie Saunders?) was >>>>> should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely
helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and
faults he
is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those
mistakes he
did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which is
him all
over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self
described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of becoming >>>> President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I don’t believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong I’m aware of >>> him
but only loosely.
I suspect he’s rather less of socialist that you think, US politics is >>> fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look
middling
rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-
said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based onConsidering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been an
what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the
even more disgusting nature of his opposition.
unwise
decision.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that
spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing
Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid of
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to
reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and
that's why he won.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I am a bit more reserved, being either blessed or cursed with a fairly
good memory.
Mr Reagan set up the Grace Commission, led by the energetic informed and competent Peter Grace, which wrote an excellent guide to removing
blatant fraud waste and abuse of Federal expenditures.
https://archive.org/details/GraceCommissionReport
Which naturally accomplished roughly nothing once various Congressmen discovered the problems were in their districts.
Mr Clinton began a priority domestic policy in early 1993 by assigning
Mr Gore to do the same. Despite apparent sincerity and the best wishes
of taxpayers across the political spectrum, nothing happened.
I support Mr Trump's posturing, despite his relatively lax habits in the first term. But in our convoluted actual system, 'draining the swamp' sounds great until you run into the swamp's lethal defenses, which are
more formidable than is generally known. I'm hopeful despite
corruption's undefeated track record but I'll wait for results before celebrating.
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first (uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better. And should have corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that the American
media actually pays attention.” In other words, to blatantly lie. Nobody >>> as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories... That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people at Charleston"
Which of course never happened and anyone can easily check the video or
the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such thing ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting Nelson
Mandela in prison." Mr Young says it never happened. Robbins Island is
far far away from Soweto, Mr Biden was never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-biden/joe-bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free on a
chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
who famously does
not extol his philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free
Rainbow/PUSH headquarters space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and supported both his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
On 4/21/2025 7:33 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 08:18:03 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/19/2025 10:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and >>>>>>>> folks who
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely do),
then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before >>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they >>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 >>>>>>>>>>>> Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential >>>>>>>>>> elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the >>>>>>>>> irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie
Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely
helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and >>>>>>>> faults he
is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those
mistakes he
did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which >>>>>>>> is him all
over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the >>>>>>> GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by >>>>>>> the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self >>>>>>> described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of
becoming
President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I don?t believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong I?m aware >>>>>> of him
but only loosely.
I suspect he?s rather less of socialist that you think, US
politics is
fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look >>>>>> middling
rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-
has-said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based on >>>>>>> what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the >>>>>>> even more disgusting nature of his opposition.Considering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been
an unwise
decision.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that >>>>> spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing
Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
No far from it, media this side of the pond which ever way they
leaned was
broadly he shouldn’t be running, he should retire and so on.
out of election time generally Americans politics aren’t that closely >>>> followed unless it becomes newsworthy which generally isn’t a good
thing!
Might want to fact check what he’s actually done vs what he says!
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid of
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to
reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and
that's why he won.
Nope, that would pop his little magatard bubble.
Apparently, Junior is still getting his news from the same liars who
told him that told him that Joe Biden was mentally and emotionally
sharp as a tack.
As for what Trump is doing... I support his efforts to shut down the
border, ship illegals out of the country, use tariffs just as most
other countries do, and reduce the wasteful spending that's already
created a huge national debt.
I don't know if it will do any good, but at least he's trying to fix
things.
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth
without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first
(uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better. And should have
corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that
the American
media actually pays attention.” In other words, to
blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...
That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of
his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people
at Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone
can easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such
thing ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting
Nelson Mandela in prison." Mr Young says it never
happened. Robbins Island is far far away from Soweto, Mr
Biden was never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela
in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-
biden/joe-bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free
on a chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram- posts/nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH
headquarters space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and
supported both his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
Even if true, it's a far cry from the overt christian
nationalism he's now supporting.>
On 4/21/2025 7:33 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 08:18:03 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/19/2025 10:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 09:01:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 11:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Does seem to be a fairly low margin, as ever with politics and >>>>>>>>> folks who
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Presidential
On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign
contributions is an abomination.
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely do),
then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like mind?
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
composite individuals when they act as one.
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential >>>>>>>>>>> elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47). >>>>>>>>>>
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the >>>>>>>>>> irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.
are true believers, they are fairly immune to facts!
In uk still have folks saying Jeremy Corbyn (US Bernie
Saunders?) was
should have won, if X had happened!
Failing to remember that his vote or Labour rather was hugely >>>>>>>>> helped by the
Tory party dismissing him as threat for all of his failures and >>>>>>>>> faults he
is a campaigner, plus they did some staggering home goals!
Hence when Boris called a snap election and didn?t make those >>>>>>>>> mistakes he
did get very healthy majority which he managed to fuckup which >>>>>>>>> is him all
over really!
Roger Merriman
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the >>>>>>>> GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a >>>>>>>> significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by >>>>>>>> the
Democrats.
The left is making a big issue out of Bernie Sanders who is a self >>>>>>>> described socialist. As such, he has about the same chance of
becoming
President as do I. Socialism doesn't fly very high in the USA.
I don?t believe he wants to be president? Could be wrong I?m aware >>>>>>> of him
but only loosely.
I suspect he?s rather less of socialist that you think, US
politics is
fairly right wing ie the democrats even from a UK perspective look >>>>>>> middling
rather and certainly not far left or any such kind of thing.
Sanders has always described himself as a socialist.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-
has-said-about-socialism-120265
Trump is not a very nice person, but I voted for him twice based on >>>>>>>> what I believed he could do for the country, and also because of the >>>>>>>> even more disgusting nature of his opposition.Considering the harm he appears to be causing that may have been >>>>>>> an unwise
decision.
Ahhhh, Apparently, you've been listening to the same news media that >>>>>> spent four years claiming that Joe Biden was competent and managing >>>>>> Presidential duties properly. Why do listen to those dishonest
Jackasses?
No far from it, media this side of the pond which ever way they
leaned was
broadly he shouldn�t be running, he should retire and so on.
out of election time generally Americans politics aren�t that closely >>>>> followed unless it becomes newsworthy which generally isn�t a good
thing!
Might want to fact check what he�s actually done vs what he says!
I applaud what Trump is doing. Closing the border, getting rid of
illegals, eliminating wasteful spending, forcing other countries to >>>>>> reconsider their tariffs. It's what he said he was going to do and >>>>>> that's why he won.
Nope, that would pop his little magatard bubble.
Apparently, Junior is still getting his news from the same liars who
told him that told him that Joe Biden was mentally and emotionally
sharp as a tack.
Obviously, the floriduh dumbass is still getting his news from the
magatard spunk machine.
As for what Trump is doing... I support his efforts to shut down the
border, ship illegals out of the country, use tariffs just as most
other countries do, and reduce the wasteful spending that's already
created a huge national debt.
I don't know if it will do any good, but at least he's trying to fix
things.
Q.E.D.
On 21 Apr 2025 09:14:04 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:The problem with the Local's Pub or Restaurant is that in many cases
On 19 Apr 2025 22:22:34 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 18:24:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 14:17:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his >>>>>>>>>>>>> permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or >>>>>>>>>>>>> competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding
might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry
immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire.
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about.
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by
posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe
he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling >>>>>>>>>>>> experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years
commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility >>>>>>>>>>>> riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer
traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How
many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How
many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles
in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road
rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider
event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your >>>>>>>>>>>> courage and experience really are more than mine."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was >>>>>>>>>>>> going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I >>>>>>>>>>>> called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he >>>>>>>>>>>> posts about me results in more humiliation from me.
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an >>>>>>>>>>>> accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of >>>>>>>>>>> countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that
other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no >>>>>>>>>>> difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield.
As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it
appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self >>>>>>>>>>> gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality
as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably >>>>>>>>>>> high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and
want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a
tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so. >>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
I can't see that it matters much as to what country you ride your >>>>>>>>> bicycle in. You mighrt have to know the different laws, but that's >>>>>>>>> easy to do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The laws are generally fairly uniform and the laws generally are broadly
similar.
It?s more cultural sort of stuff, ie what people expect.
Roger Merriman
I don't need a bicycle to do that. Actually, I believe a bicycle would >>>>>>> be a hindrance when touring someplace I'd never been before. They move >>>>>>> either too fast or too slow. Too fast to interact with people, and too >>>>>>> slow to move from place to place.
Bikes are absolutely not too fast to interact with people, depending on the
ride I?d have a possibility of encountering dog or otherwise walkers, Horse
riders, other cyclists.
And you stop and talk to them just the same as if you were just
walking? I don't.. I doubt you do either..
At the speeds i meeting folks on the trails it?s really not needed, these >>>> are just minor good mornings, nice dog/horse/child interaction not setting >>>> the world to rights over a drink!
Bikes are the fastest thing often and well I?ll need to not blast past >>>> dogs/kids/horses.
Roger Merriman
Yes I?m unlikely to chat to someone as a plummet of the side of hill, but
it?s quite likely that I?d chat if very briefly at some point on the ride
unless it?s a one of the MTB rides into the hills ie remote areas. >>>>>>
Maybe bike touring doesn?t appeal? Fine but clearly bikes are kinda human
level travel.
I've done a lot of walking around in Caribbean countries. I met and
talked to a lot of people. When I was sailing, I had a bicycle along >>>>> with me, but it was only useful for transpiration. When I wanted to go >>>>> out and about and meet the locals, which I was eager to do, I went for >>>>> walks. My meager high school and college level Spanish improved
dramatically on those walks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
When I'm in a different culture I like to get involved in that
culture, far away from the tourist traps. I want to ask questions and
talk about our different cultures, food, and lifestyles. That can't be
done with a simple good morning. That can't be done when you're riding
around on a bicycle.
A) as with most tourists traps, there is often if not always the locals
cafe/bars etc just around the corner if one is remotely observant.
B) which ever mode of travel one assumes to talk in a more expanded manner, >> probably does require stopping which can be done by most forms of travel
though bike/hiking etc are much more human level of interaction.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
they don't speak your language (:-)
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth
without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first
(uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better.� And should have
corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing �to create stories so that
the American
media actually pays attention.� In other words, to
blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...
That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of
his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people
at Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone
can easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington"� No such
thing ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting
Nelson Mandela in prison."� Mr Young says it never
happened. Robbins Island is far far away from Soweto, Mr
Biden was never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela
in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-
biden/joe-bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free
on a chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram-
posts/nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH
headquarters space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and
supported both his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
Even if true, it's a far cry from the overt christian
nationalism he's now supporting.>
People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/business/jesse-jackson-sets-up-office-to-monitor-corporate-action.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-mn-471-story.html
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a
christian, haven't noticed.
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first (uncorroborated) >>>>>> reports. He should have known better. And should have corrected his >>>>>> misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that the American >>>>> media actually pays attention.” In other words, to blatantly lie.
Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories... That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff who were
his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people at
Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone can easily
check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such thing ever
happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting Nelson
Mandela in prison." Mr Young says it never happened. Robbins Island
is far far away from Soweto, Mr Biden was never arrested and never
visited Nelson Mandela in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe- biden/joe-
bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free on a
chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram- posts/
nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH headquarters
space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and supported both his 1984
& 1988 Presidential runs.
Even if true, it's a far cry from the overt christian nationalism he's
now supporting.>
People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/business/jesse-jackson-sets-up- office-to-monitor-corporate-action.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-mn-471-story.html
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a christian, haven't noticed.
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the Democrats.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 09:23:52 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth
without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first
(uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better. And should have
corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that
the American
media actually pays attention.” In other words, to
blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...
That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of
his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people
at Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone
can easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such
thing ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting
Nelson Mandela in prison." Mr Young says it never
happened. Robbins Island is far far away from Soweto, Mr
Biden was never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela
in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-
biden/joe-bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free
on a chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram-
posts/nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH
headquarters space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and
supported both his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
Even if true, it's a far cry from the overt christian
nationalism he's now supporting.>
People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/business/jesse-jackson-sets-up-office-to-monitor-corporate-action.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-mn-471-story.html
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a
christian, haven't noticed.
I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump...
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves
you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said,
"Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I
said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said,
"Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative
Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great
Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He
said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of
1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 09:23:52 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth
without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first
(uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better. And should have
corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that
the American
media actually pays attention.” In other words, to
blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...
That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of
his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people
at Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone
can easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such
thing ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting
Nelson Mandela in prison." Mr Young says it never
happened. Robbins Island is far far away from Soweto, Mr
Biden was never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela
in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-
biden/joe-bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free
on a chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram-
posts/nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH
headquarters space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and
supported both his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
Even if true, it's a far cry from the overt christian
nationalism he's now supporting.>
People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/business/jesse-jackson-sets-up-office-to-monitor-corporate-action.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-mn-471-story.html
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a
christian, haven't noticed.
I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump...
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves
you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said,
"Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I
said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said,
"Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative
Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great
Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He
said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of
1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
On 4/21/2025 12:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 09:23:52 -0500, AMuziJohn, you really need to cite references - This is from a Emo
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth
without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first
(uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better. And should have
corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that
the American
media actually pays attention.” In other words, to
blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...
That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of
his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people
at Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone
can easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such
thing ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting
Nelson Mandela in prison." Mr Young says it never
happened. Robbins Island is far far away from Soweto, Mr
Biden was never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela
in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-
biden/joe-bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free
on a chartered jet sent by a New York real estate
developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/
instagram-
posts/nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH
headquarters space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and
supported both his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
Even if true, it's a far cry from the overt christian
nationalism he's now supporting.>
People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/business/jesse-
jackson-sets-up-office-to-monitor-corporate-action.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-
mn-471-story.html
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a
christian, haven't noticed.
I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump...
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said,
"God loves
you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He
said, "A
Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He
said,
"Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said,
"Baptist." I
said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He
said,
"Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern
Conservative Baptist or
Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me,
too! Northern
Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern
Conservative
Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative
Baptist Great
Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council
of 1879, or
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council
of 1912?" He
said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region
Council of
1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Phillips comedy routine in the 1980s
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:01:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...I, a tourist, had
to explain to taxi drivers that I wanted to go where there were no
tourists. Unfortunately, that resulted in some late night walks back
to the boat. I would not do that again in today's world.
SO much fear!
Really? So, at your age, you'd be perfectly happy to walk, alone at
night, through unfamiliar neighborhoods in a foreign country?
If you answer "yes," you're either a liar or a moron.
I did it. I even did it Chicago when I was a young man.. but no, not today...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/21/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...I, a tourist, had
to explain to taxi drivers that I wanted to go where there were no
tourists. Unfortunately, that resulted in some late night walks back
to the boat. I would not do that again in today's world.
SO much fear!
On 4/21/2025 10:52 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
That isn�t of its self a problem! At least in terms of getting a drink/food >> long conversation might be tricky though surprising or not how much chat
The problem with the Local's Pub or Restaurant is that in many cases
they don't speak your language (:-)
one can have despite lack of a shared language!
About a month ago we were checking into a hotel at the edge of a
national park at the same time a German couple was arriving. I welcomed
them to America.
After leaving for a while to see some sights, we got a table at the
hotel's restaurant. When the German couple entered, I invited them to
eat dinner with us. My German language knowledge is zero. Their English
was halting at best. But we enjoyed an hour of interesting conversation,
with lots of reference to translation apps on our phones.
Today's technology makes that much easier than it used to be.
On 4/21/2025 9:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
If only the MAGA crew could get the Dow Jones people to stop lying!Obviously, the floriduh dumbass is still getting his news from the
magatard spunk machine.
MAGA needs to explain that stocks are all soaring higher and higher. So
many people believe otherwise!
On 4/21/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 09:23:52 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:John, you really need to cite references - This is from a Emo
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth
without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first
(uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better. And should have
corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that
the American
media actually pays attention.” In other words, to
blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...
That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of
his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people
at Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone
can easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such
thing ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting
Nelson Mandela in prison." Mr Young says it never
happened. Robbins Island is far far away from Soweto, Mr
Biden was never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela
in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-
biden/joe-bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free
on a chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/ instagram-
posts/nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH
headquarters space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and
supported both his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
Even if true, it's a far cry from the overt christian
nationalism he's now supporting.>
People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/business/jesse- jackson-sets-up-
office-to-monitor-corporate-action.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25- mn-471-story.html
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a
christian, haven't noticed.
I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump...
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves
you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A
Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said,
"Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I
said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said,
"Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or
Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern
Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative
Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great
Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He
said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of
1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Phillips comedy routine in the 1980s
I don't know who that is, but variants on that quip go back at least to
the mid-1960s.
On 4/21/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free on a
chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram- posts/
nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-mn-471-story.html
From your link, Andrew: "But Trump�s generosity only goes so far:
Organizers are paying $130,000 to charter the plane, Dolan said."
It seems you somehow drew your own conclusion of "flew free" from
"paying $130,000".
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a christian, haven't
noticed.
Sorry, that "haven't noticed" phrase is literally unbelievable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism_in_the_United_States
And regarding your "not being a Christian" phrase, people obviously
didn't have to be Muslim to go apoplectic over rumors of Sharia Law
taking over the U.S..
An important difference is that the Sharia Law kerfuffle was almost
totally devoid of fact, let alone probability. The Christian Nationalism >movement is real.
Am 19.04.2025 um 11:49 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
The significance was that every state vote count swung towards the
GOP, and that the popular vote was also for the GOP. That was a
significant swing towards the GOP in spite of the playing down by the
Democrats.
"Significant swing" is correct.
"Significant majority" is not.
If you were behind in the past you often need a significant swing to get
a very small majority.
On 4/21/2025 1:22 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:01:48 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI did it with my wife, many, many times. Sometimes with other family
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...I, a tourist, had
to explain to taxi drivers that I wanted to go where there were no
tourists. Unfortunately, that resulted in some late night walks back
to the boat. I would not do that again in today's world.
SO much fear!
Really? So, at your age, you'd be perfectly happy to walk, alone at
night, through unfamiliar neighborhoods in a foreign country?
If you answer "yes," you're either a liar or a moron.
members. Always unharmed. Oh, and unarmed, of course.
Maybe that's your problem - that in many countries you'd have to leave
your handgun behind?
Damn, you're timid!
On 4/21/2025 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:22 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:01:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...I, a tourist, had
to explain to taxi drivers that I wanted to go where there were no
tourists. Unfortunately, that resulted in some late night walks back >>>>> to the boat. I would not do that again in today's world.
SO much fear!
Really? So, at your age, you'd be perfectly happy to walk, alone at
night, through unfamiliar neighborhoods in a foreign country?
If you answer "yes," you're either a liar or a moron.
+1
https://www.azfamily.com/2025/04/19/man-rips-victims-eye-out-random-
attack-east-phoenix/
That's a typical response from you, Andrew. You found _one_ scary story,
out of how many peaceful, unremarkable nighttime walks every day around
the world? You can't really be pretending that incident is
representative of the actual level of risk! How many attacks per million >nighttime walks do you think actually occur?
That's aside from the fact that the timid tricyclist specified "foreign >country." But Phoenix is in _this_ country. I'm pretty sure the foreign >countries that I've visited have all been shown to be safer, on average,
than America.
On 4/21/2025 1:31 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:06:42 -0400, Frank KrygowskiHow sad that the timid tricyclist lives a life of so few interesting >experiences.
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 10:52 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
That isn�t of its self a problem! At least in terms of getting a drink/food
The problem with the Local's Pub or Restaurant is that in many cases >>>>> they don't speak your language (:-)
long conversation might be tricky though surprising or not how much chat >>>> one can have despite lack of a shared language!
About a month ago we were checking into a hotel at the edge of a
national park at the same time a German couple was arriving. I welcomed
them to America.
After leaving for a while to see some sights, we got a table at the
hotel's restaurant. When the German couple entered, I invited them to
eat dinner with us. My German language knowledge is zero. Their English
was halting at best. But we enjoyed an hour of interesting conversation, >>> with lots of reference to translation apps on our phones.
Today's technology makes that much easier than it used to be.
I suspect that's another of Krygowski's imaginative romps though his
need to be included in every conversation he come across.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:44:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 09:23:52 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:John, you really need to cite references - This is from a Emo
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth
without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first
(uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better.� And should have
corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing �to create stories so that
the American
media actually pays attention.� In other words, to
blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...
That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of
his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people
at Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone
can easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington"� No such
thing ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting
Nelson Mandela in prison."� Mr Young says it never
happened. Robbins Island is far far away from Soweto, Mr
Biden was never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela
in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-
biden/joe-bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free
on a chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram-
posts/nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH
headquarters space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and
supported both his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
Even if true, it's a far cry from the overt christian
nationalism he's now supporting.>
People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/business/jesse-jackson-sets-up-office-to-monitor-corporate-action.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-mn-471-story.html
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a
christian, haven't noticed.
I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump...
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves
you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A
Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said,
"Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I
said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said,
"Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or
Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern
Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative
Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great
Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative�Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He
said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of
1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Phillips comedy routine in the 1980s
Why? Do I have to list the reference in order to post the quotation?
After all I didn't claim it for my (or any one's) invention.
On 21 Apr 2025 14:52:54 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 09:14:04 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:That isnt of its self a problem! At least in terms of getting a drink/food >> long conversation might be tricky though surprising or not how much chat
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:The problem with the Local's Pub or Restaurant is that in many cases
On 19 Apr 2025 22:22:34 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 18:24:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 14:17:02 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 11:21:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 04:28:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:02:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:12 PM, John B. wrote:
Hmm "Free speech scares some people"? I don't know about "scares" but
Frankie's free speech calling you a coward certainly set you off.
Oh, it happened before that! Our timid tricycle rider entered his
permanent snit before I ever used the word "coward." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He was highly offended when I suggested he lacked the courage or
competence to ride normal roads, and that his back-and-forth path riding
might be OK for him, but too boring for me.
Remember, my statement was in response to a guy who said there was no
way riding near cars could be safe; and who can't even summon the nerve
to ride an empty suburban bike trail without having deadly weaponry
immediately at hand, chambered and ready to fire. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm not seeing any evidence of courage there.
<LOL> As if a wussie like you would know what courage is all about.
Actually, what pissed me off was before that when Krygowski bragged by
posting a list of ineffective thing's that I was supposed to believe
he'd done and demanded that I list, in detail, all of my bicycling
experiences...
"How much recreational riding have you done on roads? How many years
commuting to work by bike on normal roads? How much other utility
riding have you done on ordinary roads? How much overnight or longer
traveling have you done on normal roads? How much bike camping? How
many U.S. states have you ridden in? How many foreign countries? How
many century rides have you done? How many rides longer than 100 miles
in one day? How many times have you organized and led friends on road
rides? How many times have you organized and run multi-hundred rider
event rides on normal roads?
Answer in detail, please. That will allow us to gauge whether your
courage and experience really are more than mine." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qVoI4KQlAQAJ
That posting told me exactly what kind of a person he was. He was
going to show the new guy that he was to be respected or else. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> called his bluff and now he hides from me knowing that whatever he
posts about me results in more humiliation from me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He actually thought that riding on a group bicycle ride was an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> accompishment.
His claims to fame are rather Self-Grandizing.
For example. "How many foreign countries?" I've ridden a number of
countries outside the U.S.(one a war zone) and I can assure you that
other then which side of the road to ride in I saw essentially no >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
Really? Quite different cycling experience just locally and further afield.
As folks expectations differ.
As for his other claims to fame... while he obviously feels proud, it
appears from his writing that it is much a matter of "self >>>>>>>>>>>>> gratification" and even yet more proof of his Narcissistic personality
as those that suffer from this mental disorder have an unreasonably
high sense of their own importance. They need and seek attention and
want people to admire them.
He might at worse overstate his experience ie difference between being a
tourist and living in an area even if only for a year or so. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
I can't see that it matters much as to what country you ride your >>>>>>>>>>> bicycle in. You mighrt have to know the different laws, but that's >>>>>>>>>>> easy to do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The laws are generally fairly uniform and the laws generally are broadly
similar.
It?s more cultural sort of stuff, ie what people expect.
Roger Merriman
I don't need a bicycle to do that. Actually, I believe a bicycle would
be a hindrance when touring someplace I'd never been before. They move
either too fast or too slow. Too fast to interact with people, and too
slow to move from place to place.
Bikes are absolutely not too fast to interact with people, depending on the
ride I?d have a possibility of encountering dog or otherwise walkers, Horse
riders, other cyclists.
And you stop and talk to them just the same as if you were just
walking? I don't.. I doubt you do either..
At the speeds i meeting folks on the trails it?s really not needed, these
are just minor good mornings, nice dog/horse/child interaction not setting
the world to rights over a drink!
Bikes are the fastest thing often and well I?ll need to not blast past >>>>>> dogs/kids/horses.
Roger Merriman
Yes I?m unlikely to chat to someone as a plummet of the side of hill, but
it?s quite likely that I?d chat if very briefly at some point on the ride
unless it?s a one of the MTB rides into the hills ie remote areas. >>>>>>>>
Maybe bike touring doesn?t appeal? Fine but clearly bikes are kinda human
level travel.
I've done a lot of walking around in Caribbean countries. I met and >>>>>>> talked to a lot of people. When I was sailing, I had a bicycle along >>>>>>> with me, but it was only useful for transpiration. When I wanted to go >>>>>>> out and about and meet the locals, which I was eager to do, I went for >>>>>>> walks. My meager high school and college level Spanish improved
dramatically on those walks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
When I'm in a different culture I like to get involved in that
culture, far away from the tourist traps. I want to ask questions and >>>>> talk about our different cultures, food, and lifestyles. That can't be >>>>> done with a simple good morning. That can't be done when you're riding >>>>> around on a bicycle.
A) as with most tourists traps, there is often if not always the locals >>>> cafe/bars etc just around the corner if one is remotely observant.
B) which ever mode of travel one assumes to talk in a more expanded manner,
probably does require stopping which can be done by most forms of travel >>>> though bike/hiking etc are much more human level of interaction.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
they don't speak your language (:-)
one can have despite lack of a shared language!
Roger Merriman
That is not necessarily correct in some cases. Here, a small, on the
side of the road, eating houses may well sell some dishes that are
extremely "hot", loaded with hot peppers to the point that even some
locals are avoiding them.
On 4/21/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free on a
chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram- posts/
nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-mn-471-story.html
From your link, Andrew: "But Trump’s generosity only goes so far: Organizers are paying $130,000 to charter the plane, Dolan said."
It seems you somehow drew your own conclusion of "flew free" from
"paying $130,000".
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a christian, haven't
noticed.
Sorry, that "haven't noticed" phrase is literally unbelievable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism_in_the_United_States
And regarding your "not being a Christian" phrase, people obviously
didn't have to be Muslim to go apoplectic over rumors of Sharia Law
taking over the U.S..
An important difference is that the Sharia Law kerfuffle was almost
totally devoid of fact, let alone probability. The Christian Nationalism movement is real.
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:Get this occasional pop up on social media and conspiracy theories about >Christmas being banned or Easter by Kahn (the London Mayor who is Muslim) >whose office pays and organises said events.
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free on a
chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram- posts/
nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-mn-471-story.html
From your link, Andrew: "But Trump�s generosity only goes so far:
Organizers are paying $130,000 to charter the plane, Dolan said."
It seems you somehow drew your own conclusion of "flew free" from
"paying $130,000".
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a christian, haven't
noticed.
Sorry, that "haven't noticed" phrase is literally unbelievable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism_in_the_United_States
And regarding your "not being a Christian" phrase, people obviously
didn't have to be Muslim to go apoplectic over rumors of Sharia Law
taking over the U.S..
An important difference is that the Sharia Law kerfuffle was almost
totally devoid of fact, let alone probability. The Christian Nationalism
movement is real.
Trump seems to have thing about him for some reason? I mean he�s not >objectively a particularly good Mayor but he�s also not bad like Boris was >for his 2nd term.
Roger Merriman
On 4/21/2025 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:22 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:01:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...I, a tourist, had
to explain to taxi drivers that I wanted to go where
there were no
tourists. Unfortunately, that resulted in some late
night walks back
to the boat. I would not do that again in today's world.
SO much fear!
Really? So, at your age, you'd be perfectly happy to
walk, alone at
night, through unfamiliar neighborhoods in a foreign
country?
If you answer "yes," you're either a liar or a moron.
+1
https://www.azfamily.com/2025/04/19/man-rips-victims-eye-
out-random- attack-east-phoenix/
That's a typical response from you, Andrew. You found _one_
scary story, out of how many peaceful, unremarkable
nighttime walks every day around the world? You can't really
be pretending that incident is representative of the actual
level of risk! How many attacks per million nighttime walks
do you think actually occur?
That's aside from the fact that the timid tricyclist
specified "foreign country." But Phoenix is in _this_
country. I'm pretty sure the foreign countries that I've
visited have all been shown to be safer, on average, than
America.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 13:43:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:22 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:01:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...I, a tourist, had
to explain to taxi drivers that I wanted to go where there were no >>>>>> tourists. Unfortunately, that resulted in some late night walks back >>>>>> to the boat. I would not do that again in today's world.
SO much fear!
Really? So, at your age, you'd be perfectly happy to walk, alone at
night, through unfamiliar neighborhoods in a foreign country?
If you answer "yes," you're either a liar or a moron.
+1
https://www.azfamily.com/2025/04/19/man-rips-victims-eye-out-random-
attack-east-phoenix/
That's a typical response from you, Andrew. You found _one_ scary story,
out of how many peaceful, unremarkable nighttime walks every day around
the world? You can't really be pretending that incident is
representative of the actual level of risk! How many attacks per million
nighttime walks do you think actually occur?
That's aside from the fact that the timid tricyclist specified "foreign
country." But Phoenix is in _this_ country. I'm pretty sure the foreign
countries that I've visited have all been shown to be safer, on average,
than America.
Well, if you're only going to go to "safe" countries. Much of the
Carribean where I was walking is today, not particularly safe.
Here I am walking in Cozumel. I think it was a couple miles from the
hotel to the Plaza. We took a taxi home because I could hardly walk
with the bends in my ankle. In the picture, it had only begun to hurt.
Later, in the restaurant, it got really painful. https://www.flickr.com/photos/j_soloman/53147607323/in/datetaken/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 4/21/2025 1:13 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 13:43:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:22 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:01:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...I, a tourist, had
to explain to taxi drivers that I wanted to go where there were no >>>>>>> tourists. Unfortunately, that resulted in some late night walks back >>>>>>> to the boat. I would not do that again in today's world.
SO much fear!
Really? So, at your age, you'd be perfectly happy to walk, alone at
night, through unfamiliar neighborhoods in a foreign country?
If you answer "yes," you're either a liar or a moron.
+1
https://www.azfamily.com/2025/04/19/man-rips-victims-eye-out-random-
attack-east-phoenix/
That's a typical response from you, Andrew. You found _one_ scary story, >>> out of how many peaceful, unremarkable nighttime walks every day around
the world? You can't really be pretending that incident is
representative of the actual level of risk! How many attacks per million >>> nighttime walks do you think actually occur?
That's aside from the fact that the timid tricyclist specified "foreign
country." But Phoenix is in _this_ country. I'm pretty sure the foreign
countries that I've visited have all been shown to be safer, on average, >>> than America.
Well, if you're only going to go to "safe" countries. Much of the
Carribean where I was walking is today, not particularly safe.
Here I am walking in Cozumel. I think it was a couple miles from the
hotel to the Plaza. We took a taxi home because I could hardly walk
with the bends in my ankle. In the picture, it had only begun to hurt.
Later, in the restaurant, it got really painful.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j_soloman/53147607323/in/datetaken/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As here, many local variants to all that.
My employee says he and his bride never felt unsafe in Costa
Rica (a nation with no army, BTW).
Early today I read a very long piece with many interviews of
El Salvadorans who all sang the praises of the current
administration as they were until recently the top country
for homicide rate but now among the lowest. Women in
particular noted they had never let young children outside
before, walked to the market without fear and the street
vendors among them said not paying the gangs every day adds
immensely to their family's finances.
An old friend and ex-bicycle mechanic (not here) who's
retired has visited Mexico frequently over the past ten
years or so. His friends there are on the Pacific, north of
Barre de Navidad. He returned last week and said he isn't
going back any time soon. Even in small towns and villages
there are guys with black balaclavas and auto weapons in
small groups. Scared the hell out of him.
On 4/21/2025 1:45 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:27:18 -0400, Frank KrygowskiMarjorie Taylor Green said the Republican party should become the
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a christian, haven't
noticed.
Sorry, that "haven't noticed" phrase is literally unbelievable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism_in_the_United_States
"Christian nationalism" is a fear mongering phrase.
Christian Nationalist party.
So, was she purposely fear mongering?
On 4/21/2025 5:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2025 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:That was in the morning news, one of several similar across the nation
On 4/21/2025 12:22 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:01:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...I, a tourist, had
to explain to taxi drivers that I wanted to go where there were no >>>>>>> tourists. Unfortunately, that resulted in some late night walks back >>>>>>> to the boat. I would not do that again in today's world.
SO much fear!
Really? So, at your age, you'd be perfectly happy to walk, alone at
night, through unfamiliar neighborhoods in a foreign country?
If you answer "yes," you're either a liar or a moron.
+1
https://www.azfamily.com/2025/04/19/man-rips-victims-eye- out-random-
attack-east-phoenix/
That's a typical response from you, Andrew. You found _one_ scary
story, out of how many peaceful, unremarkable nighttime walks every
day around the world? You can't really be pretending that incident is
representative of the actual level of risk! How many attacks per
million nighttime walks do you think actually occur?
That's aside from the fact that the timid tricyclist specified
"foreign country." But Phoenix is in _this_ country. I'm pretty sure
the foreign countries that I've visited have all been shown to be
safer, on average, than America.
this weekend. As usual.
https://www.aol.com/news/alabama-dad-jacob-couch-dies-050914741.html?
guccounter=1
https://cwbchicago.com/2025/04/man-gets-4-years-for-shooting-younger-
brother-he-was-tired-of.html
https://nypost.com/2025/04/19/us-news/brute-who-hit-ny-post-reporter-
still-on-lam-after-double-stab/
Yes, and you're digging back into events that happened as much as four
years ago.
If you dig deeply enough, you can find many thousands of such stories.
What you're ignoring is the denominator - the 300+ million people in
America, almost all of whom made it through the weekend with no assault,
no trauma at all.
You're pretending the half-a-handful of scary stories you managed to
dredge up by internet search are the norm. They are not, and pretending
they are common just adds to the paranoia and fear of the timid crowd.
It's as silly as the former Safe Kids Inc. advice: "No child under age
10 should be allowed to cross a street alone" or "No child should play >outside without adult supervision."
On 4/21/2025 5:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2025 1:13 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 13:43:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.azfamily.com/2025/04/19/man-rips-victims-eye-out-random- >>>>> attack-east-phoenix/
That's a typical response from you, Andrew. You found _one_ scary story, >>>> out of how many peaceful, unremarkable nighttime walks every day around >>>> the world? You can't really be pretending that incident is
representative of the actual level of risk! How many attacks per million >>>> nighttime walks do you think actually occur?
That's aside from the fact that the timid tricyclist specified "foreign >>>> country." But Phoenix is in _this_ country. I'm pretty sure the foreign >>>> countries that I've visited have all been shown to be safer, on average, >>>> than America.
Well, if you're only going to go to "safe" countries. Much of the
Carribean where I was walking is today, not particularly safe....
As here, many local variants to all that.
My employee says he and his bride never felt unsafe in Costa Rica (a
nation with no army, BTW).
There is a fundamental difference between "felt safe" and "were safe."
As we've seen, some people are very, very timid. The most timid person >posting here did not specify "third world country" or "country with high
rate of violent crime." He mocked the idea of walking alone at night in
_any_ foreign country.
For context, our timid friend doesn't feel safe riding on a suburban
bike path unless he's got his handgun loaded, chambered, and close to
his crotch. That's beyond timid. That's paranoid.
... Even in small towns and
villages there are guys with black balaclavas and auto weapons in small
groups. Scared the hell out of him.
Gosh! And I thought automatic weapons were supposed to be wonderful! ;-)
Yes, there are scary places in the world. There are neighborhoods I know
where I would probably avoid walking alone at night.
There are times
and places to be very cautious. But our tricyclist seems afraid of
walking in the dark in _any_ foreign country.
I can't conceive of living a life so limited by fear.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 22:42:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 5:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2025 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:That was in the morning news, one of several similar across the nation
On 4/21/2025 12:22 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:01:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...I, a tourist, had
to explain to taxi drivers that I wanted to go where there were no >>>>>>>> tourists. Unfortunately, that resulted in some late night walks back >>>>>>>> to the boat. I would not do that again in today's world.
SO much fear!
Really? So, at your age, you'd be perfectly happy to walk, alone at >>>>>> night, through unfamiliar neighborhoods in a foreign country?
If you answer "yes," you're either a liar or a moron.
+1
https://www.azfamily.com/2025/04/19/man-rips-victims-eye- out-random- >>>>> attack-east-phoenix/
That's a typical response from you, Andrew. You found _one_ scary
story, out of how many peaceful, unremarkable nighttime walks every
day around the world? You can't really be pretending that incident is
representative of the actual level of risk! How many attacks per
million nighttime walks do you think actually occur?
That's aside from the fact that the timid tricyclist specified
"foreign country." But Phoenix is in _this_ country. I'm pretty sure
the foreign countries that I've visited have all been shown to be
safer, on average, than America.
this weekend. As usual.
https://www.aol.com/news/alabama-dad-jacob-couch-dies-050914741.html?
guccounter=1
https://cwbchicago.com/2025/04/man-gets-4-years-for-shooting-younger-
brother-he-was-tired-of.html
https://nypost.com/2025/04/19/us-news/brute-who-hit-ny-post-reporter-
still-on-lam-after-double-stab/
Yes, and you're digging back into events that happened as much as four >>years ago.
If you dig deeply enough, you can find many thousands of such stories.
What you're ignoring is the denominator - the 300+ million people in >>America, almost all of whom made it through the weekend with no assault,
no trauma at all.
You're pretending the half-a-handful of scary stories you managed to
dredge up by internet search are the norm. They are not, and pretending >>they are common just adds to the paranoia and fear of the timid crowd.
It's as silly as the former Safe Kids Inc. advice: "No child under age
10 should be allowed to cross a street alone" or "No child should play >>outside without adult supervision."
So now Frank has appointed himself the arbitrator of posts to this
site and what each writer will be allowed to post and what will be >forbidden.
All I can say is "Fuck You Frank" and as for me you can go away as
your posts will no longer appear on my computer.
As for as Mr. Muzi, just keep posting as you have in the past as I,
for one, have always enjoyed your posts and hope to enjoy then in the
future.
On 4/21/2025 10:52 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. <[email protected]> wrote:
That isn’t of its self a problem! At least in terms of getting a drink/food
The problem with the Local's Pub or Restaurant is that in many cases
they don't speak your language (:-)
long conversation might be tricky though surprising or not how much chat
one can have despite lack of a shared language!
About a month ago we were checking into a hotel at the edge of a
national park at the same time a German couple was arriving. I welcomed
them to America.
After leaving for a while to see some sights, we got a table at the
hotel's restaurant. When the German couple entered, I invited them to
eat dinner with us. My German language knowledge is zero. Their English
was halting at best. But we enjoyed an hour of interesting conversation,
with lots of reference to translation apps on our phones.
Today's technology makes that much easier than it used to be.
On 4/21/2025 1:45 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:27:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a christian, haven't
noticed.
Sorry, that "haven't noticed" phrase is literally unbelievable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism_in_the_United_States
"Christian nationalism" is a fear mongering phrase.
On 4/21/2025 1:45 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:27:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a
christian, haven't
noticed.
Sorry, that "haven't noticed" phrase is literally
unbelievable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Christian_nationalism_in_the_United_States
"Christian nationalism" is a fear mongering phrase.
Especially when you're one of those dumbasses who have no
problem with your religion being shoved down other peoples
throats.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:44:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 09:23:52 -0500, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:John, you really need to cite references - This is from a Emo
On 4/21/2025 8:29 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/18/2025 8:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2025 5:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:09:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/18/2025 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Cats served in chinese takeout seem to be an urban myth
without
substance. Or in Mr Trump's case, jumping on first
(uncorroborated)
reports. He should have known better. And should have
corrected his
misstatement. Neither happened.
And Vance said he was willing “to create stories so that
the American
media actually pays attention.” In other words, to
blatantly lie. Nobody
as much as slapped his wrist.
These are our leaders now. Truth means nothing.
Reminds me of the false trump Russian Piss stories...
That Trump was
like Hitler.
Nobody as much as slapped their wrists.
Then there's all the lies about Joe Biden being top of
his game.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Or from Mr Biden's own lips (as opposed to the Obama staff
who were his handlers):
"I decided to run when Mr Trump called nazis good people
at Charleston" Which of course never happened and anyone
can easily check the video or the transcript.
"I desegregated lunch counters in Wilmington" No such
thing ever happened.
"I was arrested with Andrew Young in Soweto while visiting
Nelson Mandela in prison." Mr Young says it never
happened. Robbins Island is far far away from Soweto, Mr
Biden was never arrested and never visited Nelson Mandela
in SA.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/joe-
biden/joe-bidens- pants-fire-claim-about-his-arrest-south/
Oh by the way, when Mr Mandela did visit USA, he flew free
on a chartered jet sent by a New York real estate developer
Complete bullshit
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/oct/19/instagram-
posts/nelson-mandela-traveled-on-donald-trumps-plane-in/
who famously does not extol his philanthropy.
Because it isn't philanthropy.
Oh, and that very same person provided free Rainbow/PUSH
headquarters space at 40 Wall Street to Jesse Jackson and
supported both his 1984 & 1988 Presidential runs.
Even if true, it's a far cry from the overt christian
nationalism he's now supporting.>
People draw their own conclusions from agreed known facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/business/jesse-jackson-sets-up-office-to-monitor-corporate-action.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-25-mn-471-story.html
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a
christian, haven't noticed.
I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump...
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves
you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A
Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said,
"Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I
said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said,
"Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or
Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern
Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative
Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great
Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He
said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of
1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Phillips comedy routine in the 1980s
Why? Do I have to list the reference in order to post the quotation?
After all I didn't claim it for my (or any one's) invention.
On 4/22/2025 7:24 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/21/2025 1:45 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:27:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a
christian, haven't
noticed.
Sorry, that "haven't noticed" phrase is literally
unbelievable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Christian_nationalism_in_the_United_States
"Christian nationalism" is a fear mongering phrase.
Especially when you're one of those dumbasses who have no
problem with your religion being shoved down other peoples
throats.
I would be the first to object if or when that happens.
On 4/22/2025 7:24 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 4/21/2025 1:45 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:27:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/21/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
If there's 'christian nationalism', I, not being a christian, haven't >>>>>> noticed.
Sorry, that "haven't noticed" phrase is literally unbelievable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Christian_nationalism_in_the_United_States
"Christian nationalism" is a fear mongering phrase.
Especially when you're one of those dumbasses who have no problem with
your religion being shoved down other peoples throats.
I would be the first to object if or when that happens.
On 4/21/2025 2:03 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:44:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/21/2025 12:31 PM, John B. wrote:
John, you really need to cite references - This is from a EmoWhy? Do I have to list the reference in order to post the quotation?
Phillips comedy routine in the 1980s
After all I didn't claim it for my (or any one's) invention.
Posting another individuals work without attribution is a crime, even
if you aren't explicitly claiming it as yours. It's called plagiarism.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:44:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>(...)
wrote:
John, you really need to cite references - This is from a Emo
Phillips comedy routine in the 1980s
Why? Do I have to list the reference in order to post the quotation?
After all I didn't claim it for my (or any one's) invention.
On 4/22/2025 6:35 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
When the German couple entered, I invited them toCan�t say I�ve ever used the translation apps but absolutely it�s perfectly >> possible to communicate to a degree without a common language.
eat dinner with us. My German language knowledge is zero. Their English
was halting at best. But we enjoyed an hour of interesting conversation, >>> with lots of reference to translation apps on our phones.
Today's technology makes that much easier than it used to be.
I've done it before, but with limited success. I'm sadly monolingual, so
I wasn't able to help much as the various people I've conversed with
searched for English words.
This couple was not quite that bad. He was the owner of what must be a
pretty prosperous farm in Germany. He described having several hired
hands, and they told us a bit about their travel on several continents.
But there was much pausing to think of words, etc.
On 4/22/2025 5:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 22:34:53 -0400, Frank KrygowskiDirect quote: "So, at your age, you'd be perfectly happy to walk, alone
<[email protected]> wrote:
There are times
and places to be very cautious. But our tricyclist seems afraid of
walking in the dark in _any_ foreign country.
"_any_ foreign country?" That straw came straight from Krygowski's
fervent imagination.
at night, through unfamiliar neighborhoods in a foreign country? If you >answer "yes," you're either a liar or a moron."
Your statement had no specifications on "a foreign country." That tells
me you think any foreign country is scary.
SO much fear!
On 4/22/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 01:03:27 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:44:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>(...)
wrote:
John, you really need to cite references - This is from a Emo
Phillips comedy routine in the 1980s
Why? Do I have to list the reference in order to post the quotation?
I like to see attributions and sources because I prefer to read things
as close to the source as possible. That avoids most interpretation,
distortion, political bias, "improvements" that change the meaning,
etc. I often lookup the source and their bias in:
<https://www.allsides.com/media-bias>
Incidentally, there are many types of bias besides political:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias>
<https://codlrc.org/evaluating/facts>
Also, fact checking.
To add some gasoline to the flames, I don't really care what anyone
thinks. It's a free country and you can theoretical believe whatever
you want. However, that doesn't extend to freely distributing (or
redistributing) fake news, distorted information, mangled quotes, etc.
Therefore, what interests me is what logic, thinking and sources were
used to arrive at someone's claims, logic or conclusions. That means
(to me) that any 2nd hand information without sources is highly
suspect and likely to be wrong or has been adjusted to conform to
someone's agenda. When someone posts an obvious quotation, using
UTF-8 encoded characters, and fails to provide the source of the
quotation, they are probably hiding something. They are also not
making it any easier for the reader to research the topic or analyze
the content.
After all I didn't claim it for my (or any one's) invention.
I hate to give you the bad news, but quoting someone's creative work
and probably copyrighted work is considered plagiarism and possibly a
copyright violation. I try to provide the sources of all my quotes.
When it's difficult or I can't remember where I found it, I usually a
like "source unknown" or "I forgot where I stole this".
I'm going to defend John. He told a joke. Jokes are folk humor that get passed freely from person to person. Yes, every joke must have an
original author, but it's very, very rare for anyone to ever know or be
able to learn of that author, so nobody ever does research to determine
the earliest known author before telling a joke.
Also, I suspect that telling one joke heard within a standup comedian's
act would probably fall under the "fair use" doctrine. From https:// michelsonip.com/basics-of-ip-blog-series-8-is-it-fair-use-or- infringement/?gad_source=1
Some rules for a much more serious parallel situation: "... educational institutions can use photocopies of copyrighted work for students
enrolled in a class, so long as the copying is limited to:
A chapter from a book.
An article from a periodical or newspaper.
A short story, short essay or short poem, whether or not from a collective work.
A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, or picture from a book,
periodical, or newspaper."
Incidentally, I think I'm allowed to post that quotation from that site.
;-)
To me, the situation has a parallel in the traditional-style music I
play with friends. If we're sitting in a circle sharing tunes, we would
never be prosecuted for copyright violation while playing only for fun,
not for any commercial purpose. And I'm very aware of composers of such
tunes who hold copyrights to get some reimbursement if their tune is
included on a commercial recording, but who have absolutely no problem
with informal sharing, or even limited performance for pay. I know this through email correspondence with such a composer, online conversations
with others. Details on request.
And before telling (or posting) a joke, how would anyone know that it
was copyrighted? Would everyone be expected to research every joke they
heard before retelling it? That's totally impractical.
On Tue Mar 25 17:45:20 2025 AMuzi wrote:questions.
On 3/25/2025 5:04 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:00:19 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue Mar 25 12:12:26 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 02:15:54 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Mar 24 17:02:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree >> >>>>> that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no >> >>>>> balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans >> >>>>> overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might
be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?
There weren 597,000 bicycle related traumatic brain injuries treated in emergency hospitals in the US alone.
99% are "I think I might have bumped my head"
PS Half a million brain injuries ? Is this over a month?
No wonder they voted wrong.
I'd vote wrong if I had a brain injury.
[]'s
Btain injuries are among the most serious consequences of bicycle accidents and include concussions, moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries and post-concussive syndrome.
But Frank tells us that these injuries do not exist in his universe.
Shadow, those are HOSPITAL EVALUATED injuries and not your idea of "I think I bumped my head". These are SHOWN on an MRI as was mine. I suggest if you don't understand what is being said that you simply ask a question. We are happy to answer your
When they say "traumatic brain injuries, that meand they have been diagnosed either with x-rays which show major damage or Magnetic Resonance Imaging which shows everything.
NO, TBI means anything from a slight headache to a small
hematoma to the skull. Or even if the patient says "I think I bumped
my head".
Some hospitals ask "did you bump your head?" and if the
patient can't remember, mark "yes" for insurance purposes.
Brain damage rarely shows on a simple Xray, unless there is a
fracture. An MRI might or might not show anything. Ditto a CT scan.
Depends if there is any bleeding or swelling.
The diagnosis is usually clinical. Loss of function, temporary
blindness or deafness, loss of memory(main sign of concussion),
confusion etc. And those can all have other causes.
Never trust what the hospitals say. Not in a country where
they are run as a business.
[]'s
They are a racket.
A business in interested in competing against other
businesses for satisfied customers at a competitive price.
Hospitals are hardy a "racket". I think perhaps medical schools are teaching less methods of thinking and more simple responses. Shadow said that he misdiagnosed an mRNA injury But he LOOKED at a symtom and did not run any tests, Of course his dentistis not his patient and should have known better but really good neurologists are few and far between. So the Dentist might well have gotten the same faulty diagnosis from a working neurologist.
Remember that in the USA doctors are scared shitless of lawsuits and so they use MRI when CT scan with contrast and AI interpretation is just as good and a HELL of a lot cheaper.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:01:01 |
| Calls: | 12,104 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,093 |
