Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Law, the Law of Averages, and an Average Beer

Got this video from Mr. Hoovis. There was another Danny MacAskill movie that made it's way through the various portals of the internet a few months back; this one is very similar in that it contains video evidence of Danny doing some crazy tricks off of pretty much anything he sees. For my money, I think this video is better due mainly to the scenery in which he rides. I miss Europe.

On to news from the home front. Another Tuesday brought another trivia night down at The High Noon Saloon. Did you know that Dorothy's slippers in the book version of the Wizard of Oz were silver but changed to ruby red because they showed up better that way in technicolor? Yeah, neither did we. We went on to win one round, keeping our average above .333, which is our new goal. During the course of said trivia I started and finished a glass of the saloon's Raspberry Wheat beer:

You can see the raspberry influence on the color.I tried this beer during the beer tasting a couple of us went to for my dirty thirty, but due to lingering sickness I did not give it a fair shake. To remedy my earlier transgression, I sidled up the our table and promptly ordered the raspberry wheat, fully knowing that there are other beers on the menu that I enjoy. My experience last night wasn't mind-blowing, either good or bad, and when all was said and done I realized that there is a place in the world of beer drinking for a raspberry wheat beer.

Its raspberry flavor wasn't overpowering, but it made its presence known; being a fan of raspberries, the flavor was pretty good - not too sweet and not too fruity. As far as the wheat beer goes, it did not compare to the wheat beers I've grown accustomed to in Germany - the ones where you order another beer as the drink to your wheat beer meal. If asked, I would place this beer in the category of "when the time is right." How will you know when the time is right? You just will, you just will.

In a story similar to the one I posted a few days ago concerning a Spanish DB who is suing a family for the damages their son's body caused to his Audi, a man in Connecticut is suing a family for allowing their son to ride without a helmet. Oh yeah, this man hit and killed the child. It appears that Velonews decided to provide the whole story, in that this man's suit is a countersuit to one from the parents of the boy who was killed. The story that was run yesterday failed to mention that.

As you can see here in section 14-286d.(b):

(b) No child fifteen years of age or under shall operate a bicycle on the traveled portion of any highway unless such child is wearing protective headgear which conforms to the minimum specifications established by the American National Standards Institute or the Snell Memorial Foundation’s Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling. Failure to comply with this section shall not be a violation or an offense. Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil action.

So while you have to wear a helmet, it isn't a punishable offense and the fact that a child didn't wear one is not admissible in any civil action claiming contributory negligence on the part of the parents. I wonder if Mr. Weaving looked at the cycling laws before bringing his suit (he apparently is representing himself).

I whole-heartedly disagree with anything Mr. Weaving is attempting to do (I really don't think a helmet would have saved the kid after being hit by an automobile driving at 80 mph), but I do think all children should wear helmets when operating bicycles. If you're having trouble convincing your kids helmets are good, just show them that Danny MacAskill wears one.

No comments:

Post a Comment