HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: timf@eskimo.com (Timothy R. Flanagan)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Bicycles are Vehicles (was Mandatory Helmets)
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:44:25 GMT
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <1992Dec13.094318.2950@eskimo.com> jammer@eskimo.com (Lyle Harwood) writes:
:Officer Flanagan, you seem like a reasonable man, and a credit to your
:uniform. You sound like the type of man I want as a police officer.
:
:Except for one statement.
:
:Force will never change nor alter my mind, only reason will.
:When any weapon makes it's appearance, any discussion with me will
:cease, instantly, to be about the subject we WERE talking about,
:and will become a contest of force.
:
:You are correct, in my opinion, in your assumption that even with a gun,
:you are seriously "outgunned" when facing a person in a motor vehicle.

I never displayed a weapon.  That is against the law.  It is called
"brandishing".  Also, I am not an officer.  As I indicated, I work
for King County Police.  I am a Communications Specialist.  I answer
the phone, screan requests for emergency (police, fire & medical)
response, and dispense what the training manual calls "police advice".
I am not a commissioned officer, I do not wear a uniform, and I do not
"impersonate" police officers.  I am just an ordinary private citizen.

I also agree with your statements.  Carrying a deadly weapon is a
tremendous responsibility, and far beyond the scope of this discussion.


-- 
Timothy R. Flanagan				
ACLU  EFF  NRA
tim@reed.edu  
timf@eskimo.celestial.com
Xref: sparky seattle.general:4137 pnw.general:2948 alt.society.civil-liberty:6952 alt.activism:19644 alt.individualism:6112 rec.bicycles.misc:1593 talk.politics.misc:64556
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:22:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Dec16.135700.1991@bmerh85.bnr.ca> paynter@bnr.ca (Stuart Paynter) writes:

>     - any people that may present when the accident occured

Exactly what has this to do with anything at all? Are you assuming that
you are somehow interfering with others if you are so rude as to be run
over when they're present?

>     - ambulance/paramedics/fire/police who have to come and patch
>       you up

For which they are suitably paid. In fact this is precisely the work
that keeps such employees on the payroll.

>     - hospital emergency staff
>     - hospital staff (doctors, nurses, orderlies, kitchen staff
>       etc etc) while you recover.

Same as above.

>     - any person who also needs the hospital bed you are occupying
>     - your (and/or your employers) medical insurance
>     - every other person on that medical insurance plan
>     - your FAMILY who worries about you
>     - your employer/customers while you are away from work
>     - lawyers/judges/court employees if there is a lawsuit
>
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that everything you do
reflects some effect on others. Well, this includes breathing which
uses air that could be more useful to people of higher caliber than
we lowly bicyclists. What about the toxins released into the atmosphere
by coal fired electrical generation? Are you telling us that a head
injury on a single bicylist can have greater effect than the normal
everyday hazards of living in modern civilization?

Such ideas are factitious and make one wonder what is going on in
the mind of those who expound them.
>
Xref: sparky seattle.general:4195 pnw.general:2994 alt.society.civil-liberty:7001
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:11:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec20.211114.3823
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec16.012626.8675@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>:
>: Take the head injured biker that wasn't wearing a helmet for example.
>
>This would be great, but there would be a big outcry from various sections
>of society.  My own parents insist that if someone goes out in a wilderness
>area or wherever, and don't come back, society is *morally required* to go
>in and find him/her, regardless of the costs.  Until we can get most of these
>people to change their minds, society will bear the costs, and we will
>continue to get more restrictive laws passed (seat belts, helmets, etc.).
>
>Scott Linn
>scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com

A point I am trying to make is that financial considerations should
not be a reason for restricting liberty.  Take the above example, will
we eventually see people banned from going into forests because the
government will have to spend money to rescue them if they get lost?
As technology advances, the costs to society for individual
actions, or mistakes, will increase if society is willing to expend
every effort to ensure safety.  It was a lot cheaper to look for a
lost person in 1910 when helicopters were not around and airplanes
were not generally available than it is today with these machines
available plus infrared detectors, and cameras and satellites etc to
look for lost people.

It seems to me that if the cost to society argument a legitimate
reason for restricting freedoms of individuals, it will lead to the
loss of many freedoms for citizens if technology is allowed to
continue to advance. Freedom is supposed to be enhanced, not curtailed
by technological advancement.

Again I would suggest that government can not do everything, and it
should make some hard economic choices if it is determined that
government can not fund all it wants to do.  The government should not
limit personal freedom in order to make its expenses lower.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+               I wear a helmet, it just makes sense                 +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Subject: Need a ladder and a snowshovel
Summary: see subject
Keywords: ladder, snowshovel
Organization: Boeing
Distribution: seattle
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:45:56 GMT

Seasonal greetings, etc - 

We have just finished our first month in our first house, and find that,
strange as it may seem, life in an apartment hasn't really prepared us for
living in a house that 'needs a little work.'  Nor for living in the snow.
Not that we have any complaints, mind you.  :-)  We rather like the snow.

We need a ladder to get to the roof to fix the chimney cap, and no doubt
fix the gutters next summer.  A five or six foot step ladder would be
great.  For a reasonable price.  I'll pick it up.  (For those who were
wondering, no I don't need it to string up the Christmas lights, we blew
all our money on buying the house - next year perhaps)

A snowshovel also seems to be a requirement this year. :-)  If you have two
and need to get rid of one, or if you are moving into a lovely condo or
apartment, we'd love to take that shovel off your hands. Again, I will pick
it up.

Thanks!

-- 
Terry
drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Subject: Re: Happy with Honda of Seattle service?
Reply-To: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Organization: The John Fluke Mfg. Co.  /a.k.a. The Gizmonics Institute/
Distribution: seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:20:46 GMT

And a third viewpoint: I bought my Civic in '87 from Riach Honda of Seattle
(which went fine), but after a year of their service, I moved up to Klein
Honda of Everett (which is near my job) because Honda of Seattle was *so*
bad.  On two separate occasions, I asked for a specific service done, and
when I picked up the car, the fix/replacement had *not* been done, and they
*had* charged me for it.  Each time I pointed this out to them, and they
acted as if it was no big deal, and took another hour to get it updated.

Admittedly, they were always extremely busy when I went there; however, I am
not one of those people who nit-pick the way their car is serviced (heck,
I'm not car-knowledgable for that), and when someone says they will put new
wheel guards on a car and charges you for it, you figure they should be
checking this out in the first place.

I have been extremely satisfied with Klein; they always tell me, when
something needs to be done, how much it will cost and how badly I need to
have it fixed; I believe they've been very straight with me.  When I get a
new Honda, I'm seriously thinking of getting it from Klein just because of
the good work they've done in the service dept.

                           "The Americans want blood; but that of course is
                            their style.  They watch too many Westerns in
                            their formative years."
---
                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET:     moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP:  {uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO:        You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
                 **>> Keep circulating the tapes <<**
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: simnet@plato.ds.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson)
Subject: Domain of bicycle helmet restrictions.
Summary: Health regulations not DMV
Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:11:05 GMT

From what I've read of the bicycle helmet restrictions, I believe the
regs are in the public health section and not the motor vehicle code.
This way it can be enforced anywhere and not just on public roads.

If you think the health laws have no jurisdiction over your own back yard,
think again. Public health violations can cause you to be evicted from
your house or have objects removed from your property. As to whether
public health laws shold be written for things that don't affect your
neighbors is another issue and I'd be interested to learn if there is
such a litmus test for a law to become a public health law. I'll bet there
are no restrictions as to what can be made a law under the guise of public
health.

		Mark

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Bicycle Helmets.
Reply-To: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:28:24 GMT

kolding@cs.washington.edu (Eric Koldinger) writes:

   In article <1992Dec9.024210.6914@eskimo.com> timf@eskimo.com (Timothy R. Flanagan) writes:
   >Wait a minute.  What the hell happened to "sharing risk"?  The whole
   >point of insurance is to cushion the individual from overwhelming
   >financial liability.  This is accomplished by sharing the risks with
   >others. If you get sick, I'm helping pay for your health care.  If I
   >get injured, you're helping me, too.  
   
   Just because we're "sharing risks" with you doesn't mean that we should have to
   support you when you take unnecessary risks.  This argument falls flat real
   fast.
   
   -- 
                                    |   Eric Koldinger
       Your tax dollars at play.    |   University of Washington
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    |   Department of Computer Science
                                    |   kolding@cs.washington.edu

You got a lot of damn gall, there bud. ;-) On the one hand you are willing
to sell my freedom for your lower taxes and insurance. On the other hand you
are quite willing to make your living off of my taxes. This is where the
*your* "argument falls flat real fast". Suppose I and a bunch of others
decide that the work you are doing is not going to pay off in any way that
directly benefits US? We raise hell and then your funding gets cut and you
have hit the bricks. Not good, eh?

The issue is still a red herring, simply because the Insurance Companies
are trying to protect their profits and don't give a rat's ass *WHO* dies,
as long as it doesn't cost them for outrageously expensive head care.
Well, fuck them. They are in business and have the same chance to make or
lose money as the rest of us, and just because they have the bucks to get
laws written their way, does *NOT* mean I should have to bend to their
will, nor does it mean that your costs are going to go down. I mean, I
mean, have they *EVER* gone down? HA!

-- 
-Kevin L. Gross          klg@statsci.com           Disclaim THIS: 
 This message is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
 of the United States of America. I'm protected under the 4th, 5th, 9th
 and 14th Amendments among others, or at least I used to be.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: mcbride@rust.zso.dec.com (Melinda McBride)
Subject: Re: Yet another request for contractor recommendations
Keywords: Broken tile wet rot no shower yuck
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
Distribution: seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:50:16 GMT

In article <3480@voodoo.UUCP> zombie@voodoo.UUCP (Mike York) writes:
>we're looking for any 
>recommendations for honest, reliable and reasonable contractors.  We're
>located in West Seattle.
>
My partner and I just finished (almost) building a house, and we worked
with an absolutly wonderful general contractor, Shirey contracting,
747-3001.

They are a family business run by Donna Shirey, her husband Riley, and
her daughter Cristin.  They are extremely experienced, knowledgable,
reliable, skilled, caring, and easy to work with.  They do a lot of
trickey remodeling jobs, as well as new construction.  They are very
creative about working out problems.  One important advantage is that
Riley is the on site person and does all of the carpentry work, with
their other employee Doug, and also personally supervises the
subcontractors.  Riley runs a very tight ship and the level of skill and
artisanship in our project is very high.  The Shireys have an extensive
network of subcontractors and were able to get priority scheduling in
our job.  

The Shireys usually work on a time and materials basis rather than on a
fixed bid.  They may cost a little more than some other contractors.
But we felt it was worth it for the level of service, skill, and
knowledge they provided, and we knew the job was being done right the
first time.  Besides, they are very, very nice people, and that's worth
a lot.  

Their office is in Bellevue, but they do a lot of work in West Seattle.
If you'd like to see an example of their work, drive by 1716 SW Austin
St. in West Seattle.  Ours is the silver house with the green trim.  You
can't miss it.  Send e-mail if you'd like a tour.


Mac
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: spowers@spdg.com (Steve Powers)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Bicycle Helmets. (long - venting of stupidity)
Organization: Stratos Product Development Group (Seattle)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:19:40 GMT

I have been watching this thread and wouldn't comment at all except for
seeing these particular gems.

In article <1992Dec10.184621.19508@eskimo.com> alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler) writes:
>
>  Just to put my anecdote into this thread.  My last bicycle mishap
>occured about 12 years or so ago.  Another bicyclist pulled out from
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>Just plowed right through his bike and I went over the handlebars.
>
> [more stuff deleted]
>
>I was totally unhurt.
>   If I had a helmet on my head would not have had clearance as I rolled
>around.  So I probably would have bonked my head on the ground and possibly
>
> [ditto, more stuff]
>
>naturally rolled to protect my head during a fall.  With a helmet on I
>simply would not have clearance to perform this necessary and vital
>maneuvor.  From my own experiences a helmet is more likely to be dangerous
>to my well being than not wearing one.

Most people, likely Dave included, haven't the foggiest idea of why they
went over the bars. A good treatise on the why is currently available in
the January '93 issue of Mountain Bike Action. You would think, I did, that
the rider simply continues travelling whilst the bike stops. Not quite.

In examing videotapes of races, etc. it was seen that the cyclist's knees
actually caused the flip. The knees hit the bars and induced a spin (e.g. the
cyclist lands on his/her back. Without the bar, you would likely end up on
your hands, knees, and or face.

The issues of helmet clearance, etc. are just a red herring and depend entirely
upon speed, rider physiology, and bike geometry. Do you want to take a chance ?

Even I wouldn't bet on Dave 2 falls out of 3 at any speed.

- steve

Xref: sparky seattle.general:4194 pnw.general:2992 alt.society.civil-liberty:6997
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Risks and paying for them
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:16:14 GMT

In <1992Dec15.170752.4827@tc.fluke.COM> lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog) writes:

>Which do you prefer:

>A. Your insurance company requires you to tell them whether or not
>   you ride a bicycle.  If you do, you pay higher premiums.  (Maybe
>   they refuse to cover you.)  If you don't tell them, and you get
>   injured on a bicycle, they don't pay.

>B. Your insurance company doesn't ask whether or not you ride a
>   bicycle, but by law, you are required to wear a helmet if you do.

>I prefer B.

Why should it be either A or B?  The health benefits of regualr
cycling exceed the injury risks anyway, so at most the rates
should stay even.  If you cycle *and* wear a helmet, they ought
to give a discount like that given for airbags, antilock brakes,
or not smoking.  If it later turns out your application was
fraudulent (you don't wear a helmet, or you do smoke) you simply
don't have coverage despite having paid.

Should the Health Department use the same reasoning as the helmet
requirement to prohibit the operation of cars lacking antilock
brakes and airbags?  It would save more lives, after all.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: smog laws
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:37:20 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1992Dec15.233350.23018@eskimo.com> delisle@eskimo.com (Stompem) writes:
>
>	A connection of threads....
>	Since smog is a health issue, and they are requireing 
>helmets for all bicycle riders as it is a ``health and safety issue;''
>then why don't the ban the use of any lead gasoline as lead is
>a nasty nurotoxin and is harmful, especially to children. 

They already have.  It has been a few years since Regular 'leaded' 
fuel has has any substantial amount of lead.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.

Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
From: ccg@tcdsp1.mmm.com ("Charles Ganzhorn")
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:52:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.013156.15496@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec10.230855.28570@nuscc.nus.sg> hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell) writes:
|> >
|> >That's what it's come down to, is it, all those fine ideals? LIberty
|> >Justice the pursuit of happiness, truths that we hold self evident, Tom
|> >Paine	 - BICYCLE HELMETS? Good grief
|> 
|> I'll tell you the way I read this (I may be misinterpreting it but here goes):
|> 
|> "After all, the freedom to choose whether or not to wear your helmet is
|> such a small liberty to lose that it is vanishingly unimportant."
|> 
|> The liberties that are enjoyed in the United States and so admired by
|> people of other countries that don't have them are being piddled away
|> by just such addlepated thinking.
|> 
|> 
This is true.  But how much do you let them "nickel and dime" you to death?  In
Colorado, you can ride on the freeway.  In Minnesota, you can't.  There are areas
in the Twin Cities that are simply cut off since the only river crossings are
freeways and I'm not allowed on them.  And they haven't provided ANY
non-motorized crossings for miles.

Suppose "they" decide that you should always wear blaze orange for visibility. 
Or that you can't ride on the roads AT ALL because it is not safe.

The idea is not the specific item they prohibit, it is the precedent that is set:
 a personal liberty is sacrificed for "the common good" in an instance where "the
common good" is not particularly enhanced by the sacrifice.  It is MY skull that
is cracked open, not anyone else's.  And as I said in a previous post, I think it
is silly to think that ANYONE would see reduced insurance prices if there were
mandatory helmet laws.  In fact, in Minnesota where we are required to have car
insurance, for example, it raised insurance prices since one of the basic concepts
of capitalism is violated:  I don't have the choice NOT to purchase the product.

Charles.
--
Charles Ganzhorn			E/Mail:  ccganzhorn@mmm.com
3M IS&DP Network Services		AT&T:	 +1 612 736 7122
St. Paul, MN				FAX:	 +1 612 736 7689
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:53:32 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Thu, 10 Dec 1992 02:30:07 GMT
>FROM:   Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com>
[....]
>     Years ago, this country (USA for those of you not in this country) was
>formed on the principles of individual liberty. 

(With a few insignificant exceptions.)

>     We fought a war of independence with the british.  Many died so that we
>could have our freedom.

Move over, Mel Brooks. The 10,000 Year Old Man has company: 
the 250 Year Old Young Republican.

--Michael Smith
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc