 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / July 2005Irresponsible Ad
Irresponsible Ad Did anyone see the new Nissan Altima ad? It has the car running a grade crossing as the gates come down and beating the train. Is this irresponsible or what? Eric > Irresponsible Ad > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Eric Ummm... isn't that the one where the gates come down across the _track_, not the road? In this case, "... or what", it seems.  SignatureJoe Ellis € CEO Bethlehem-Ares Railroad - A 1:160 Corp. ___a________n_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_n______ ___|8 8B| ___ /::::: / /::::X/ /:::::/ /:::::/|| ||__BARR| | | /::::::/ /:::::X /:::::/ /:::::/ || ---------------------------------------------------------------- [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] |_________________________| [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] =============Serving America's Heartland Since 1825============= >Irresponsible Ad > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Is this irresponsible or what? Most car ads are very much irresponsible (to put it mildly but anything for a sale, eh) and show absolutely horrible driving "habits," including reckless driving with abandon, speeding, and hand-brake turns in crowded urban enviroments. It's very obvious that the motivational research boys have tapped in to the "id" portion of the human psyche and that they absolutely don't care how many must die or be maimed in order for them to sell a car. Texas Pete >Irresponsible Ad > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Is this irresponsible or what? Yes, saw it and had the same reaction. Bet on it that someone will make sure that ad is pulled. Cordially, Ken (NY) email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm spammers can send mail to uce@ftc.gov > Did anyone see the new Nissan Altima ad? > > It has the car running a grade crossing as the gates come down and > beating the train. > > Is this irresponsible or what? Only if you live in a country that sues each other at the drop of a hat R No Big Thing... most advertising stretches credulity anyway. Few restaurant chain owners really have a head the size of a white basketball. Carter (TV Commercial Producer) > Irresponsible Ad > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Eric On 6/26/05 10:43 PM, in article QBKve.34296$J12.27629@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Carter Braxton" <jmdippel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > No Big Thing... most advertising stretches credulity anyway. Few restaurant > chain owners really have a head the size of a white basketball. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Eric Irresponsible only if it showed the car running around the gates. The ad, in fact, clearly shows the gates as holding the train back, giving the car right of way. Having said that, and given the stupidity of the average American driver..... SignatureBrian Ehni "Brian Paul Ehni" > Irresponsible only if it showed the car running around the gates. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Having said that, and given the stupidity of the average American > driver..... The "American" is superfluous. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ the superfluous is American :))))) > "Brian Paul Ehni" > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Home of the Great Eastern Railway > http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ >No Big Thing... most advertising stretches credulity anyway. Remember that ads have been pulled that show bicyclists not wearing helmets, even though they are mostly useless. Cordially, Ken (NY) email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm spammers can send mail to uce@ftc.gov > Remember that ads have been pulled that show bicyclists not >wearing helmets, even though they are mostly useless. Oh really? I can assure you that many of my fellow triathletes, as well as me, have been spared serious head injuries because they were wearing a helmet. Most of us won't ride around the corner without one on. Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" I have seen that ad several times and had never noticed that the crossing gates come down across the track rather than the road. The first time I saw it, my reaction was "they just encouraged young driver to race the train to the crossing!" The second time I saw it, I thought, "where did they get that antique loco?" I haven't seen one like that outside of a museum in more years than I can remember. Signature=========================================================== Norman Morgan <> http://www.norm-morgan.com =========================================================== Sometimes I wake up grumpy. Other times I let her sleep. =========================================================== This thead was about a TV ad at rec.models.railroad: Irresponsible Ad Did anyone see the new Nissan Altima ad? It has the car running a grade crossing as the gates come down and beating the train. Is this irresponsible or what? Eric >> Remember that ads have been pulled that show bicyclists not >>wearing helmets, even though they are mostly useless. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Mike Tennent >"IronPenguin" I remember your name from the nineties, but can't place it. I too have competed - but in duathlons - until about 1999, and can tesitfy that thanks to my helmets, I escaped facial scratches from trees and bushes along trail rides. But even though I do wear one whenever I ride, I now seriously doubt that foam helmets can save someone from the force of a 3,000 motor vehicle striking their head. I did have a friend back in about 1995, who showed me his split helmet which had saved him from serious injury when he flew over his handlebar and struck his head on a curb, resulting in a headache and road rash. But those cases are really far and few between. I will cross-post this to rec.bicyles.soc for further comments from bicyclists who have studied this subject a lot more than I have. Cordially, Ken (NY) email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm spammers can send mail to uce@ftc.gov >>> Remember that ads have been pulled that show bicyclists not >>>wearing helmets, even though they are mostly useless. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>Mike Tennent >>"IronPenguin" <snip> >I now seriously doubt that foam helmets can save >someone from the force of a 3,000 motor vehicle striking their head. Well duh. That's not what they're designed to do. Do you know that you can suffer fatal head injuries simply from falling over on a bike? While stationary? It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of head injuries. Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" >>I now seriously doubt that foam helmets can save >>someone from the force of a 3,000 motor vehicle striking their head. >Well duh. That's not what they're designed to do. So true. What a shame that the International Brotherhood of Handwringers feel the need to invoke the fear of this kind of crash in order to promote them! But then, I suppose it's understandable, given that most serious cyclist injuries are sustained in collision with motor vehicles. >Do you know that you can suffer fatal head injuries simply from >falling over on a bike? While stationary? Or from falling over backwards while drunk. Not many people do, though. Funny, isn't it, that cycling only became dangerous after Bell started producing the Biker? >It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics >and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of >head injuries. Er, not as such, no. It's designed for the equivalent of your disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less. Although it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people have survived a lot worse. There is also a school of thought which suggests that the helmet makes the impact more likely in the first place, for a number of reasons. One of the best-known pro-helmet studies found that helmeted cyclists were seven times more likely to hit their heads, and the biggest study of cyclist injuries ever conducted in the USA found a small but significant increase in risk of death. Like the man says, risk management is not rocket science - it's *much* more complicated than that! Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound "Just zis Guy, you know?" <norfolk.inspam@dev.null> wrote in message > Like the man says, risk management is not rocket science - it's *much* > more complicated than that! Brilliant! >> Like the man says, risk management is not rocket science - it's *much* >> more complicated than that! >Brilliant! http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/publish.htm is the man in question. And his book Risk is excellent. Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound > It's designed for the equivalent of your > disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less. Although > it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people > have survived a lot worse. Marie Antoinette's disconnected head fell a lot less than two meters, and it was swiftly fatal to her. ;-) >Marie Antoinette's disconnected head fell a lot less than two meters, and it >was swiftly fatal to her. ;-) Ah, but she was eating a cake at the time. Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound >>It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics >>and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of >>head injuries. > >Er, not as such, no. It's designed for the equivalent of your >disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less. <chuckle> And just what do you think falling over is? >Although >it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people >have survived a lot worse. A lot of people have survived lots of things, but that's totally irrelevant. >There is also a school of thought which >suggests that the helmet makes the impact more likely in the first >place, for a number of reasons. One of the best-known pro-helmet >studies found that helmeted cyclists were seven times more likely to >hit their heads, Oh, I see. People who wear helmets ride around thinking "OK, if I crash, I'll just slam my head down on the pavement deliberately." LOL. Sounds like statistical games for those in denial. Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" >>>It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics >>>and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of >>>head injuries. >>Er, not as such, no. It's designed for the equivalent of your >>disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less. ><chuckle> And just what do you think falling over is? Well I don't know about you, but I always do my best to keep my head firmly attached to my body when falling... Here is what one helmet tester has to say about helmet standards: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081 >>Although >>it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people >>have survived a lot worse. >A lot of people have survived lots of things, but that's totally >irrelevant. Not really. Helmets are designed to withstand a type of impact which was never likely to cause serious injury in the first place, and then people wonder why helmet use fails to reduce levels of serious injury. Some people do, anyway. Others have less trouble understanding why... >>There is also a school of thought which >>suggests that the helmet makes the impact more likely in the first >>place, for a number of reasons. One of the best-known pro-helmet >>studies found that helmeted cyclists were seven times more likely to >>hit their heads, >Oh, I see. People who wear helmets ride around thinking "OK, if I >crash, I'll just slam my head down on the pavement deliberately." Sorry, if I had realised that you didn't have the faintest clue about risk compensation theory I'd have explained it more clearly. For a good basic grounding I suggest you read Target Risk by Wilde (http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/), or Risk by Adams. Remember that crashes are caused, in the main, not by the taking of large risks, but by the taking of small risks very large numbers of times. Cycling crashes are rare, you see, and serious injuries rarer; you can get away with a given risk in some cases hundreds of thousands of times - millions, even - without a mishap. Helmeted riders perceive themselves as being better protected, so those small risks will be slightly bigger, or taken slightly more often. This balancing behaviour has been documented in respect of cars and seatbelts, cars and ABS, cyclists and helmets and various other areas. It's a bit like walking along near the edge of a cliff. The risk of falling over gets higher the closer you go to the edge, even though the change in risk for each successive inch closer to the edge is unmeasurably small. There are a lot of reasons people have put forward to explain the observed fact that head injury rates have never reduced as a result of increased helmet wearing, and of these I think risk compensation is one of the more compelling. Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound > Well I don't know about you, but I always do my best to keep my head > firmly attached to my body when falling... i stick mine up my butt. The extra body mass really attenuates the impact, and the tucked-in geometry gives a better rollout. .max no offense meant, it was just an image that needed sharing. > >>It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics > >>and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <chuckle> And just what do you think falling over is? Do you decapitate yourself as you fall? I think you didn't understand the word "disconnected." The helmet certification tests use a magnesium model of a head, fitted with linear accelerometers. That "headform" has no body attached. The impact of the decapitated headform seems a poor model for the impact of a head with a body still attached - the latter being most cyclists' personal preference! > >Although > >it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people > >have survived a lot worse. > > A lot of people have survived lots of things, but that's totally > irrelevant. It always seems to be irrelevant when people want to exaggerate the miniscule dangers of cycling. Simultaneously, the larger dangers from walking near traffic and riding in cars always seem irrelevant to the styrofoam fans. IOW, we're told we COULD, POSSIBLY be terribly hurt while cycling; but we're told it's foolish to worry about the _bigger_ risks of motoring and walking. It seems a concerted effort to disparage and discourage cycling. It's hard to interpret it any other way. > Oh, I see. People who wear helmets ride around thinking "OK, if I > crash, I'll just slam my head down on the pavement deliberately." > > LOL. > > Sounds like statistical games for those in denial. Hmmm. Sounds to me like someone who hasn't read, nor thought about, this issue at all! Tell me, since you apparently ride with a helmet: Is there any place or any situation where you would absolutely _not_ ride if you had no helmet? Perhaps mountain biking, or perhaps heavy traffic? If so, please describe it. - Frank Krygowski What in the world does this have to do with model railroading? Give me a break. Or a brake. Or put on the brakes for this thread. >>>>It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics >>>>and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski At Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:02:41 -0400, message <64jxe.44874$%Z2.17475@lakeread08> was posted by "G.M." <milbrat@cox.net>, including some, all or none of the following: >What in the world does this have to do with model railroading? Give me >a break. Or a brake. Or put on the brakes for this thread. I didn't cross-post it, but I ride my bike from the office to home, where my model railway is located. Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound >What in the world does this have to do with model railroading? Give me >a break. Or a brake. Or put on the brakes for this thread. Sorry, I meant to snip rmr from my reply, but forgot to. Blame Ken from NY for the crossposting to begin with. Mike Tennent > >>> Remember that ads have been pulled that show bicyclists not > >>>wearing helmets, even though they are mostly useless. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >>wearing a helmet. Most of us won't ride around the corner without one > >>on. Triathletes would improve their safety if they learned to ride a bicycle as the first method of injury prevention. After that they could learn to change gears when they go up an incline. I wonder if triathletes get the keys of the family car on the basis of buckling up in the seat belt rather than having acquired skills through driver's ed. > whenever I ride, I now seriously doubt that foam helmets can save > someone from the force of a 3,000 motor vehicle striking their head. I > did have a friend back in about 1995, who showed me his split helmet > which had saved him from serious injury when he flew over his > handlebar and struck his head on a curb, resulting in a headache and > road rash. But those cases are really far and few between. I wish that were the case but I have destroyed two helmets in the last year with the only head injury being a headache. The worst was at only ~10MPH and the other at 22. When I see a rider without a helmet I take them as fools. Nothing will help you if you get your head run over by a semi but that kind of accident is fortunately not common. You can die from falling over getting uncliped without headgear. Bob > I wish that were the case but I have destroyed two helmets in the last > year with the only head injury being a headache. Is that to be considered evidence of the effectiveness of foam hats? Hint: I'm not a strong man. I cannot hit you in the head with my fist hard enough to injure you, but I can punch the #&$^ out of a piece of styrofoam. If I make a paper hat, wear it on my head and destroy it in a bicycle crash while not injuring myself, is that valid evidence that a paper hat saved me from injury? > I wish that were the case but I have destroyed two helmets in the last > year with the only head injury being a headache. The worst was > at only ~10MPH and the other at 22. When I see a rider without a > helmet I take them as fools. And when I read a statement like that, I _know_ it's written by a fool. You're obviously someone who has never looked at the facts of the matter, yet feels his judgement is superior to others. Ignorance and hubris, together as always. Tell me, does your distain extend to every cyclist in the world before, say, 1975 or so? Does it extend to the billions of cyclists worldwide who presently ride wearing other (or no) styles of hats? Or does your condemnation extend only to those directly under your disapproving gaze? > Nothing will help you if you get your > head run over by a semi but that kind of accident is fortunately > not common. You can die from falling over getting uncliped without > headgear. Oh, good grief - as if _that's_ common! You can die from tripping down the steps. And from slipping on ice. And from riding in cars - the most common cause of head injury fatality. And from walking near traffic, a far bigger fatality source than cycling. And from... ... well, I'm sure you're bored with all that. Because, of course, you want to portray only _cycling_ as being dangerous, right? Despite all the data that says otherwise, right? Again: Ignorance and hubris. Try reading http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm Try reading http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets Try reading www.cyclehelmets.org Try learning a bit before condemning others' judgement about their personal safety. Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. - Frank Krygowski > Ignorance and hubris. Please feel free to ride unhelmeted, so long as you have complete health coverage and long term care insurance so I and others won't be picking up your bill. Break a leg! SignatureSteve At Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:27:33 -0700, message <1dok79vwah21k$.1dkgcz0n69ai3$.dlg@40tude.net> was posted by Steve Caple <stevecaple@commoncast.net>, including some, all or none of the following: >Please feel free to ride unhelmeted, so long as you have complete health >coverage and long term care insurance so I and others won't be picking up >your bill. Break a leg! Interesting comment at the end: according to the most widely cited pro-helmet study helmets do indeed prevent 72% of broken legs. Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound > Please feel free to ride unhelmeted, so long as you have complete health > coverage and long term care insurance so I and others won't be picking up > your bill. Break a leg! And this is your response to someone who pointed out that scientific research shows your statement to be idiocy. Now I know why foam hat fanatics are compared to religious zealots. Feel free to worship your foamed polystyrene god, but please go proselytize elsewhere. Mitch. PS: What is health insurance, if not a way to make others pay your medical bills? > > Ignorance and hubris. > > Please feel free to ride unhelmeted, so long as you have complete health > coverage and long term care insurance so I and others won't be picking up > your bill. Break a leg! If you think _you_ have any chance of picking up my medical bills, your knowledge of economics is as weak as your knowledge of bike safety! But thank you, I will feel free to ride unhelmeted. I also feel free to jog unhelmeted. I ride in my car unhelmeted, despite the fact that car interiors cause far more brain injuries and deaths than bikes ever will. I also climb ladders unhelmeted. I've done rock climbing unhelmeted. I've ridden everything from kick scooters to ice skates unhelmeted. And frankly, I think anyone who questions such personal choices needs a serious attitude adjustment... or a full-time job as an overprotective nanny! - Frank Krygowski >But thank you, I will feel free to ride unhelmeted. I also feel free >to jog unhelmeted. I ride in my car unhelmeted, despite the fact that >car interiors cause far more brain injuries and deaths than bikes ever >will. I also climb ladders unhelmeted. I've done rock climbing >unhelmeted. I've ridden everything from kick scooters to ice skates >unhelmeted. And yet, you don't seem to comprehend the differences in these activities. For someone who pro\fesses to being so well versed in risk management, you don't understand much about the risk of making this argument, do you? At Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:46:44 -0400, message <rvqfc11pcr954hcn9lf4c0dmm7c7pcnaco@4ax.com> was posted by Cheery Littlebottom <butthead@this.is.a.fake.address.com>, including some, all or none of the following: >And yet, you don't seem to comprehend the differences in these >activities. False: Frank is well aware that the risk of head injury while driving or walking is much higher than for cycling, he just doesn't think it's high enough to merit special protective equipment. Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound > >But thank you, I will feel free to ride unhelmeted. I also feel free > >to jog unhelmeted. I ride in my car unhelmeted, despite the fact that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you don't understand much about the risk of making this argument, do > you? My bet is I understand all these risks far better than you. All those things I listed are potential sources of serious head injury. As stated, car interiors (air bags and all) are still the number one cause of head injury fatalities in the US. Falls around the home are the number two. (Interesting news story from yesterday: http://tinyurl.com/9zuns ) The head injury rate, per hour exposure, for walking near traffic is about the same as for cycling. The number of pedestrian fatalities (including head injury fatalities) dwarfs those for cycling. Cycling is responsible for less than 1% of America's head injury fatalities. Motorists are roughly 50% of the victims. Falls around the home cause roughly 40%. Yet where are the calls for helmets for motorists? For ladder-climbers and stair-descenders? Why do the safety nuts pick on cycling? Before Bell began marketing the Bell Biker in the mid-70s, there were _no_ warnings about head injuries and cycling. But Bell, and Snell (to whom Bell contributes) and Safe Kids (to whom Snell contributes) and various hand-wringing organizations have successfully convinced the public that brain-injured cyclists had to be plowed off the roads in 1970. They have successfully influenced cycling magazines so that Bicycling, Adventure Cyclist and the League of American Bicyclists magazine have editorial policies forbidding photos of Caucasians without helmets! And now, we have legions of well-meaning cyclists who have never seen someone on a quality bike without a foam topping. And, since they know about presta valves and butted spokes, these guys think they know about head injuries. Sorry, "Cheery Littlebottom," but it's all as silly as your pen name. - Frank Krygowski Sorry - I didn't mean to cross-post to rec.bicycles.sociopath. SignatureSteve > Sorry - I didn't mean to cross-post to rec.bicycles.sociopath. In other words, you didn't want the discussion to involve anyone who actually knows anything about the issue? OK, your preference for ignorance is duly noted. - Frank Krygowski > In other words, you didn't want the discussion to involve anyone who > actually knows anything about the issue? No, this person who bicycle commuted for nearly ten years, rode centuries, was president of a bicycle club, bicycle toured independently in Europe, etc., just gets tired of Libertarian/NeoCon/Scamentologist/AynRanty/etc. zealots. SignatureSteve > > In other words, you didn't want the discussion to involve anyone who > > actually knows anything about the issue? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > etc., just gets tired of Libertarian/NeoCon/Scamentologist/AynRanty/etc. > zealots. And this person who has bike commuted since 1977, rode many dozens of centuries , many 100-150 mile rides and one double century, was president, vice president, trustee, ride captain, and current safety chairman of a large club, served on local and statewide bike-related committees for the DOT, wrote most of the local bike transportation plan, gave classes and seminars on recreational and transportational cycling, is a certified Bike Ed instructor, toured independently in four countries (two in Europe), ridden independently coast-to-coast in the US, testified before state legislators regarding bike safety, etc etc gets REALLY tired of people who spout off on a bike-related issue without knowing the facts. I've studied this issue for years. I've got many reams of printed info, dozens of copies of scientific research articles, and megs of computer files on it. And by the way, I once recommended helmets. I no longer do, based on what I learned through study. My attitude is not about libertarianism or any of the other distortions you imply - although I do think people should be free to take reasonable risks. My attitude is about people (including cyclists) who are so willing to portray cycling as unusually dangerous, and so willing to vilify those who make choices different from theirs - whether or not those people have actually studied the data on safety and on the actual, real-world effects of helmets. It's ignorance combined with hubris combined with lack of tolerance. You may find something worth admiring in that combination, but I certainly don't. - Frank Krygowski I have no opinion or knowledge about bike helmet safety but why do bike helmets have look like Egg Plants that are strapped on to ones head? Bruce >> > In other words, you didn't want the discussion to involve anyone who >> > actually knows anything about the issue? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski > I have no opinion or knowledge about bike helmet safety but why do bike > helmets have look like Egg Plants that are strapped on to ones head? My old Bell looks like a chamber pot. My stepson had a sort of eggplanty Specialized brand helmet; they had their name in white letters on a black fabric strip. He took a black maker and blotted out the IZ SPECIAL ED SignatureSteve > > No, this person who bicycle commuted for nearly ten years, rode centuries, > > was president of a bicycle club, bicycle toured independently in Europe, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > etc gets REALLY tired of people who spout off on a bike-related issue > without knowing the facts. That settles it. weener jpgs are now required. >this person who bicycle commuted for nearly ten years, rode centuries, >was president of a bicycle club, bicycle toured independently in Europe, >etc., just gets tired of Libertarian/NeoCon/Scamentologist/AynRant/etc. >zealots. It's interesting that you accuse the helmet sceptics of zealotry. Are we the ones attempting to force our opinion on others through legislation or false portrayals of cycling as a hazardous activity? Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound > Sorry - I didn't mean to cross-post to rec.bicycles.sociopath. Well look at the bight side. With these guys going after you, they won't be able to claim it is "just me". :-) SignatureMy real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB On 7/1/05 12:27 AM, in article 1dok79vwah21k$.1dkgcz0n69ai3$.dlg@40tude.net, >> Ignorance and hubris. > > Please feel free to ride unhelmeted, so long as you have complete health > coverage and long term care insurance so I and others won't be picking up > your bill. Break a leg! Or worse! Oh, and be sure to fill out that organ donation card and fill out the living will while you're at it. SignatureBrian Ehni > On 7/1/05 12:27 AM, in article 1dok79vwah21k$.1dkgcz0n69ai3$.dlg@40tude.net, > ... Break a leg! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh, and be sure to fill out that organ donation card and fill out the living > will while you're at it. Brian, the "organ donor" remark is a tired and foolish chestnut. I hate to disillusion you, but one of my best friends worked for LifeBank for a long time. He assures me that cyclists are not, and never have been, even a miniscule source of organ donations. Here's why: For one thing, when a cyclist is killed, despite the amazing hype about head injuries, it's very seldom a nice clean corpse with a brain injury. It tends to be a badly mangled body, since over 90% of cyclist fatalities are from being hit by cars. Most of the organs can't be used. But even more important: There are not, and never have been, enough dead cyclists to supply organs! The primary sources of organs are circulatory problems - strokes and heart attacks. Car occupants are also well represented. (My friend got his kidney from a car crash victim.) Look at the numbers. In a typical year in the US, there are about 700,000 heart disease deaths, about 500,000 stroke deaths, about 50,000 miscellaneous accident victims and about 40,000 auto occupant deaths. There are only about 800 cyclist deaths - far, far less than 1% of the total. In fact, even if you look just at head injury deaths, cyclists are less than 1% of _that_ total. If you're going to talk about organ donors, go talk to people who _aren't_ riding bikes. The more a person bikes - helmet or no helmet - the less likely they are to become an organ donor. So forget the organ donor quips, OK? They make you look foolish. - Frank Krygowski >be sure to fill out that organ donation card and fill out the living >will while you're at it. No,. it's OK, they are intending to cycle, not drive. Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound "Ken [NY]" <email@BelowThe.Text>, In a message on Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:08:29 -0400, wrote : "[> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:43:44 GMT, "Carter Braxton" "[> <jmdippel@sbcglobal.net> claims: "[> "[> >No Big Thing... most advertising stretches credulity anyway. "[> "[> Remember that ads have been pulled that show bicyclists not "[> wearing helmets, even though they are mostly useless. The only *good* Ad that was pulled was (IMHO) also one by Nissan -- way back in the 80's I think they had an 'Enjoy The Ride' campaign. One particular ad featured a GI Joe who repels off of Godzilla, gets into a red sports car, drives down the hall (from the boy's room to the girl's room), where Barbie and Ken are standing (in their tennis outfits) on their house. Barbie takes one look at the hot red sports car (and presumably the 'buff' GI Joe), goes inside, changes to a pair of cutoff jean shorts, grabs a duffel bag, hops in the passenger seat and GI Joe drives off, leaving a 'distraught' Ken behind. GI Joe drives under the grinning Japanese guy standing in the hallway (feet spread). Cut to the Nissan logo and the slogan "Enjoy The Ride". It seems Mattel was not happy with Barbie's apparent infeldity... Esp. with GI Joe (also a Mattel product). "[> "[> Cordially, "[> Ken (NY) "[> "[> email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm "[> "[> spammers can send mail to uce@ftc.gov "[> \/ Robert Heller ||InterNet: heller@cs.umass.edu http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || heller@deepsoft.com http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153 > Irresponsible Ad > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Is this irresponsible or what? Open your eyes -- the gates come down and block the tracks, not the road! Duh Drew. I don't think the gate would stop the locomotive. It's idiotic ads like this that suggest to people that they can somehow cheat the laws of physics. Eric "Open your eyes -- the gates come down and block the tracks, not the road!" > Duh Drew. I don't think the gate would stop the locomotive. > > It's idiotic ads like this that suggest to people that they can somehow > cheat the laws of physics. > > Eric "Duh" yourself... it won't stop a car, either. Hell, even a motorcyclist can break a crossing gate. We should thank those that run a crossing gate for removing themselves from the gene pool. The ones _I_ feel sorry for are the train crews who have to live with the images of those who "suicide by locomotive". SignatureJoe Ellis € CEO Bethlehem-Ares Railroad - A 1:160 Corp. ___a________n_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_n______ ___|8 8B| ___ /::::: / /::::X/ /:::::/ /:::::/|| ||__BARR| | | /::::::/ /:::::X /:::::/ /:::::/ || ---------------------------------------------------------------- [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] |_________________________| [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] =============Serving America's Heartland Since 1825============= > Duh Drew. I don't think the gate would stop the locomotive. > > It's idiotic ads like this that suggest to people that they can somehow > cheat the laws of physics. Duh, Eric. It's an ad intended to get people's attention by showing the unexpected. A crossing gate stopping a train for a car is just that. Lord Jesus Christ, we have some dumb people here. Mark wrote: "It's an ad intended to get people's attention by showing the unexpected." Well obviously. "A crossing gate stopping a train for a car is just that. Lord Jesus Christ, we have some dumb people here." Showing a car racing to beat a train at a crossing is irresponsible. There are ALOT of places in this country that don't have crossing gates. When I was living in Vermont the only place there were crossing gates were in cites and towns. Anywhere else either just has flashing lights or nothing but a RR X-ing sign. And here's another kicker, due to the infrequent service of the Vermont Railroad alot of the flashers didn't operate because the contacts would develop non conductive oxidation from the disuse. Since people blowing gates is a big enough problem that the railorads have seen fit to develop a PSA campaign to combat it having a auto company create an ad that implies that their vehicles can beat the train is irresponsible. Putting a brief shot of a gate blocking the track is not going to undo the operative message that our car is fast and you CAN beat the train with it. Maybe your kids'll see this and get the bright idea they can beat the train on their bikes if they just get a fast enough start. Should make a interesting darwin award. Eric <<snip>> > Since people blowing gates is a big enough problem that the railorads > have seen fit to develop a PSA campaign to combat it having a auto > company create an ad that implies that their vehicles can beat the > train is irresponsible. Putting a brief shot of a gate blocking the > track is not going to undo the operative message that our car is fast > and you CAN beat the train with it. "Think of it as Evolution in Action" > Maybe your kids'll see this and get the bright idea they can beat the > train on their bikes if they just get a fast enough start. Should make > a interesting darwin award. Happened the other day here in Ohio - an 11 year old _went_around_ the lowered crossing gates on a bike. You can't protect people from their own stupidity. SignatureJoe Ellis € CEO Bethlehem-Ares Railroad - A 1:160 Corp. ___a________n_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_n______ ___|8 8B| ___ /::::: / /::::X/ /:::::/ /:::::/|| ||__BARR| | | /::::::/ /:::::X /:::::/ /:::::/ || ---------------------------------------------------------------- [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] |_________________________| [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] =============Serving America's Heartland Since 1825============= > Irresponsible Ad > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Eric Although I haven't seen the ad, I'm guessing it had the usual "Do not attempt. Professional drivers on closed course" disclaimer (needed these days for those who don't have any common sense). Chris Curren >>Irresponsible Ad >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Chris Curren L. S./M. F. T. Filter, Flavor, Flip top Box 9 out of 10 doctors recommend Chesterfield Physohex, because it's so pure. I'm not a doctor, but..... more rececently....nearly any commercial for any action movie. Paxil "Although I haven't seen the ad, I'm guessing it had the usual "Do not attempt. Professional drivers on closed course" disclaimer (needed these days for those who don't have any common sense)." Well, yes. But that doesn't take into account the 'Hey! Y'all watch this!' crowd. Most of them can't read. Eric > Well, yes. But that doesn't take into account the 'Hey! Y'all watch > this!' crowd. Most of them can't read. Hey - you're the one who noticed the commercial! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.