Personally, I really don't care if you wear a helmet or not...
Hell and High Water
day.
Five Broken Ribs
Broken Collar Bone
Punctured lung
Unconscious for about 10 minutes
No memory of the first hour and a half
'Woke Up' in an ambulance...
Say what you will, think what you think, and do as you choose, but
you'll NEVER see me riding a bike without a helmet.
-Bob
Zog The Undeniable
Bill Sornson
> Then why tell us the story?
Whaddya, NEW?
Zog The Undeniable
> Whaddya, NEW?
No, but I've not been reading the group regularly for a couple of months
(I try to get out more in summer). I take it the OP is a prolific troll?
Bill Sornson
No, at least AFAIK. It's just that "Lid Wars 2006" have been raging (or
limping along) for months now; H&HW just started a new thread instead of
adding a 5017th to the current one.
Stan Cox
threads go that way.
Stan Cox
Tim McNamara
Hell and High Water <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:
> I, on the other hand, would clearly be dead, had I not had one on that
> day.
>
>
> Five Broken Ribs
>
> Broken Collar Bone
>
> Punctured lung
None of which would be prevented by a helmet, obviously.
> Unconscious for about 10 minutes
>
> No memory of the first hour and a half
>
> 'Woke Up' in an ambulance...
>
> Say what you will, think what you think, and do as you choose, but
> you'll NEVER see me riding a bike without a helmet.
I'm glad you're able to ride a bike again! Whether or not the helmet
was of benefit to you I have no idea. You believe it was and that's
good enough for you.
NYC XYZ
I can respect that.
I can even respect that, for legal reasons and reasons of insurance,
bike clubs have a helmets-only policy.
I do not respect those who try to frighten me with horror stories.
I've taken many a spill, even flying over my handlebars headlong into
bushes. Taxis, pedestrians, dogs, car doors, vans, trucks, you name it
-- everything but helicopters and airplanes, it seems.
But I am not afraid.
When I get older, I will be (already I've stopped the downhill stuff).
What can I say?
If you have no fear, you have no fear. Like anything else in life,
this is a matter of faith. And I just don't believe it'll happen to
me. What can I say?
But helmet nazis get so obnoxious as to fault me for having my helmet
off at all, even when not on my bike!!!
Phil Lee, Squid
You used to DH? Crash a lot?
--
Phil Lee, Squid
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>I do not respect those who try to frighten me with horror stories.
When I hear the horror stories I can't help but think: why aren't you
considering wearing something to protect against those other injuries?
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
NYC XYZ
You used to read? Nod a lot?
NYC XYZ
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>
> When I hear the horror stories I can't help but think: why aren't you
> considering wearing something to protect against those other injuries?
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
Indeed, every accident I've been in, my arms are what hit the ground
first! More likely to break a wrist than anything.
Phil Lee, Squid
> You used to read? Nod a lot?
I wasn't trying to be smart or anything. I was really asking.
--
Phil Lee, Squid
NYC XYZ
Well, I did say I had downhilled, though it wasn't a big passion of
mine, since I wasn't looking to get hurt and flying off the bike one
time without getting hurt was my sign from God to give it up.
And no, I didn't wear a helmet, but the bushes adequately cushioned my
headlong cannonball run. =)
Barnard Frederick
> Say what you will, think what you think, and do as you choose, but
> you'll NEVER see me riding a bike without a helmet.
>
>
> -Bob
Mommy, please make it stop...
Michael Press
<MPG.1f341087e...@news.giganews.com>,
Hell and High Water <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:
So you do not remember what contributed to the crash? That
would have been useful.
I went down at low speed once because I went at a 5 cm
rise for a driveway entrance at a grazing angle, and
instead of going up it, the bike went sideways and down. I
got an ugly scrape on my shoulder. Don't do what I did.
--
Michael Press
ackfugue
never saw a rider without a helmet on during this tour. Never.
Hell and High Water wrote:
jtaylor
"Hell and High Water" <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f341087e...@news.giganews.com...
>
>
> Say what you will, think what you think, and do as you choose, but
> you'll NEVER see me riding a bike without a helmet.
>
Do you wear one while walking?
If not, why not?
jtaylor
"ackfugue" <mie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1154157964....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Compared to Tour de Frances of recent years, I have noticed that I
> never saw a rider without a helmet on during this tour. Never.
>
>
You didn't see any without loads and loads of other advertising for various
sponsors either, did you?
The performers in that dance do not pick the costumes they must wear.
Joe Riel
> Compared to Tour de Frances of recent years, I have noticed that I
> never saw a rider without a helmet on during this tour. Never.
That's because it is now mandatory for the riders.
--
Joe Riel
Robin Hubert
> In article <MPG.1f341087e...@news.giganews.com>,
> tifo...@OVEcomcast.net says...
>> Say what you will, think what you think, and do as you choose, but
>> you'll NEVER see me riding a bike without a helmet.
>
> ever have any progeny) will wear them, but I won't run around yelling at others
> to wear one. It's their head.
>
> Hope you're feeling better now. Definitely glad you're not dead.
>
Don't forget to wear one when you cross the street! Oh, and in the
bathtub, and in your car, and on an airplane ....
Robin Hubert
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Hell and High Water wrote:
Well, depends now doesn't it-I, broken L1, L3, C-5, lacerated kidney,
knocked out for 15 minues, came to in the ambulance, 30 hours of
amnesia, 12 stiches around my right eye where it hit her
windshield...no bumps or bruises in any area that would have been
protected by a helmet...hit from behind by pickup truck traveling at 35
MPH, while riding bike....no helmet....
helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
injury...
H M Leary
Robin Hubert <cv2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
SNIP
>
> Don't forget to wear one when you cross the street! Oh, and in the
> bathtub, and in your car, and on an airplane ....
>
>
> Robin Hubert
Airplane???
Back in the days when I was with the Force, two squadron members flew
into the back of Sandia Peak in New Mexico.
The only "good" the helmets - full pressure - did was to help the morgue
guys pick up the jello.
I always wear my helmut in the shower, does'nt everyone?
HAND
97F degrees - lets ride
jtaylor
"Joe Riel" <jo...@k-online.com> wrote in message
news:87lkqcc...@k-online.com...
What percentage of photos and video coverage of riders does not include (at
least a portion of) the head(s)?
I'm surprised it has taken this long for the sponsors to enforce additional
advertising surface.
Sandy
Jeff Starr
wrote:
Is that what you tell your customers?
Life is Good!
Jeff
Bill Sornson
> Is that what you tell your customers?
Nah. They don't /talk/ to their customers:
{Post from 5/26}
Robin Hubert wrote:
> You should try shopping at Lickton's
I did a while back. Was building up a new frame, and ordered a 9 speed DA
triple FD from their (your?) website.
Parts started coming in and had a friend lined up to help me with some of
the trickier stuff, but still no FD. (This is more than a week since I
ordered it; appeared to go thru no problem on the site.)
So I finally call, leave a message, and then get a call back. Am told that
"you can't find any 9 sp. DA FDs any more", and only option is the '06
10-speed (for, like, $98 or something). This is despite the fact that it
was still showing on their/your website.
So I search a bit and like an idiot buy the very first one I find (for...$68
or so?), only to then find one for $49 or close to that a day later.
The point is that no one bothered to let me know my order couldn't be
filled, and only after a week or more when I finally called was I told
something that was completely untrue (that 9 DAFDs were no longer
available -- there were many online sources). I was very excited to build
up my new bike, and this delayed it for quite a while (had to arrange with
my friend to help another time, like 10+ days later).
The kicker? Whoever I finally talked to (the guy who tried to get me to buy
a 10 speed FD for close to a hundred bucks) never once apologized for the
mistake on the web page OR for not notifying me.
So no, I don't think I should "try shopping at Lickton's" ever again.
Bill "still waiting" S.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
I'll let that pass Sandy but a few more zingers and I won't mind
getting into a pissing contest about France....
Bill Sornson
> helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
> injury...
Man, we could have used a short and sweet summary like THAT about three
months ago! Might have saved a /lot/ of bandwidth...
<eg>
Benjamin Lewis
It *might* have if "don't hurt" were changed to "are a minor inconvenience
and may contribute to inflated perceptions of the risks inherent in cycling".
... and I don't even want to start with the theories regarding risk
compensation, rotational injuries, etc.!
--
Benjamin Lewis
Bill Sornson
So Peter, who knows just about everything about cycling (albeit with a
decidedly Campy slant), picked /this exact issue/ about which to make a
categorically incorrect statement.
Sorry, I think he pretty much nailed it. (Hell, he even said they /may/
help -- isn't THAT lukewarm enough for you guys?)
Just as helmets don't "save lives" except in extremely rare circumstances,
they don't "hurt" (as in make cycling more dangerous) except in extremely
rare circumstances, either.
Hyperbole is a two-way street -- it's both ways or neither.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
>injury...
Yeah. Wristguards 'may" help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for
wrist injuries. That's why smart cyclists use them. Same with chin
guards.
You never know what could happen out there, so be safe.
Bill Sornson
> On 29 Jul 2006 07:00:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
>> injury...
> Yeah. Wristguards 'may" help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for
> wrist injuries. That's why smart cyclists use them. Same with chin
> guards.
Typical sloppy attempt. Wristguards CAN hurt -- not only re. comfort but by
interfering with the hands' movements (working the brakes, gear shifts,
etc.). That's why essentially NO cyclists ever wear them. (Unlike, say...
oh yeah, helmets!)
Someone also posted that wristguards have been shown to be ineffective at
preventing injuries of rollerbladers, because they seldom just "slap" their
wrists against the ground in a fall, and instead instinctively stick out
their arms -- thus breaking hands, collar bones, shoulders, etc.
Finally, of course, one seldom hears the phrase "traumatic /wrist/ injury".
Other than those things, you really scored with your scathingly pinpoint
post.
<eg>
> You never know what could happen out there, so be safe.
Just don't be stupid about it (i.e., wearing equipment ill-suited you your
chosen activity).
Benjamin Lewis
> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>>>> helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
>>>> injury...
>
>>> Man, we could have used a short and sweet summary like THAT about
>>> three months ago! Might have saved a /lot/ of bandwidth...
>
>> It *might* have if "don't hurt" were changed to "are a minor
>> inconvenience and may contribute to inflated perceptions of the risks
>> inherent in cycling".
>>
>> ... and I don't even want to start with the theories regarding risk
>> compensation, rotational injuries, etc.!
>
> So Peter, who knows just about everything about cycling (albeit with a
> decidedly Campy slant), picked /this exact issue/ about which to make a
> categorically incorrect statement.
If you say so. I didn't think it was categorically incorrect, if that's
what you're implying.
> Sorry, I think he pretty much nailed it. (Hell, he even said they /may/
> help -- isn't THAT lukewarm enough for you guys?)
You may note that I did not take issue with that part of his statement.
> Just as helmets don't "save lives" except in extremely rare
> circumstances, they don't "hurt" (as in make cycling more dangerous)
> except in extremely rare circumstances, either.
Absolutely. However, I think it's worth noting that "added risk" is not
the only potential disadvantage, and that "doesn't hurt" has various
possible interpretations.
> Hyperbole is a two-way street -- it's both ways or neither.
I don't see any hyperbole in my, Peter's, *or* your comments above.
--
Benjamin Lewis
John Forrest Tomlinson
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 2006 07:00:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
>>> injury...
>
>> Yeah. Wristguards 'may" help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for
>> wrist injuries. That's why smart cyclists use them. Same with chin
>> guards.
>
>Typical sloppy attempt. Wristguards CAN hurt -- not only re. comfort but by
>interfering with the hands' movements (working the brakes, gear shifts,
>etc.). That's why essentially NO cyclists ever wear them. (Unlike, say...
>oh yeah, helmets!)
And you're saying helmets don't hurt in any way? No comfort issues,
no weight issues, no visibility issues, no cost issues?
Wow.
JT
PS - I've seen cyclists with wristgaurds. It's exceedingly rare, but
I've seen riders with them.
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>
>>>>> helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
>>>>> injury...
>>
>>>> Man, we could have used a short and sweet summary like THAT about
>>>> three months ago! Might have saved a /lot/ of bandwidth...
>>
>>> It *might* have if "don't hurt" were changed to "are a minor
>>> inconvenience and may contribute to inflated perceptions of the
>>> risks inherent in cycling".
>>>
>>> ... and I don't even want to start with the theories regarding risk
>>> compensation, rotational injuries, etc.!
>> So Peter, who knows just about everything about cycling (albeit with
>> a decidedly Campy slant), picked /this exact issue/ about which to
>> make a categorically incorrect statement.
> If you say so. I didn't think it was categorically incorrect, if
> that's what you're implying.
He stated categorically that helmets don't hurt. You took issue with that.
That's all.
Bill Sornson
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:59:50 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On 29 Jul 2006 07:00:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
>>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
>>>> injury...
>>
>>> Yeah. Wristguards 'may" help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for
>>> wrist injuries. That's why smart cyclists use them. Same with chin
>>> guards.
>>
>> Typical sloppy attempt. Wristguards CAN hurt -- not only re.
>> comfort but by interfering with the hands' movements (working the
>> brakes, gear shifts, etc.). That's why essentially NO cyclists ever
>> wear them. (Unlike, say... oh yeah, helmets!)
>
> And you're saying helmets don't hurt in any way? No comfort issues,
> no weight issues, no visibility issues, no cost issues?
You wrote that wristguards "don't hurt". I disagreed, saying that they
/can/.
The point was that your analogy isn't apt, since many (! your favorite word
!) cyclists wear helmets, while virtually none wear wrist guards
> Wow.
>
> JT
Much better sig -- good job! :-P
> PS - I've seen cyclists with wristgaurds. It's exceedingly rare, but
> I've seen riders with them.
Thus my use of the word "essentially" above, and "virtually" just now. (I'd
wear one if I had a sprained wrist I suppose; otherwise they're too
restrictive and uncomfortable IMO.)
(Ah, old sig was still there; spoke too soon.)
John Forrest Tomlinson
>> And you're saying helmets don't hurt in any way? No comfort issues,
>> no weight issues, no visibility issues, no cost issues?
>
>You wrote that wristguards "don't hurt". I disagreed, saying that they
>/can/.
>
>The point was that your analogy isn't apt, since many (! your favorite word
>!) cyclists wear helmets, while virtually none wear wrist guards
Many cyclists don't wear helmets, which by your reasonsing suggests
they can hurt -- just that some cyclists think their benefits are
worth it.
Considering that there is significant advertising promoting helmet
use, as well as event rules and laws requiring their use, I don't see
how you can conclude they don't hurt simply because some or even many
riders use them.
JT
Qui si parla Campagnolo
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:59:50 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On 29 Jul 2006 07:00:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> >> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
> >>> injury...
> >
> >> Yeah. Wristguards 'may" help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for
> >> wrist injuries. That's why smart cyclists use them. Same with chin
> >> guards.
> >
> >Typical sloppy attempt. Wristguards CAN hurt -- not only re. comfort but by
> >interfering with the hands' movements (working the brakes, gear shifts,
> >etc.). That's why essentially NO cyclists ever wear them. (Unlike, say...
> >oh yeah, helmets!)
>
> And you're saying helmets don't hurt in any way? No comfort issues,
> no weight issues, no visibility issues, no cost issues?
>
> Wow.
>
> JT
>
> PS - I've seen cyclists with wristgaurds. It's exceedingly rare, but
> I've seen riders with them.
Yikes touy would think this is about the Arab-Israeli conflict or
abortion or something...it's about a plastic hat on your head while you
use that toy called a bicycle...
David Damerell
>I, on the other hand, would clearly be dead, had I not had one on that
>day.
Who volunteered for you repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted
head?
Or, in other words, "clearly", nothing. Like everyone else with a "saved
my life" story, you're almost certainly deluded. You suffered non-fatal
injuries to the rest of the body - why suppose that the injuries to the
very toughest part of the body would have been fatal?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Epithumia, July - a weekend.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:59:50 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> On 29 Jul 2006 07:00:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
>> >> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>> helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
>> >>> injury...
>> >
>> >> Yeah. Wristguards 'may" help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for
>> >> wrist injuries. That's why smart cyclists use them. Same with chin
>> >> guards.
>> >
>> >Typical sloppy attempt. Wristguards CAN hurt -- not only re. comfort but by
>> >interfering with the hands' movements (working the brakes, gear shifts,
>> >etc.). That's why essentially NO cyclists ever wear them. (Unlike, say...
>> >oh yeah, helmets!)
>>
>> And you're saying helmets don't hurt in any way? No comfort issues,
>> no weight issues, no visibility issues, no cost issues?
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> JT
>>
>> PS - I've seen cyclists with wristgaurds. It's exceedingly rare, but
>> I've seen riders with them.
>
>Yikes touy would think this is about the Arab-Israeli conflict or
>abortion or something...it's about a plastic hat on your head while you
>use that toy called a bicycle...
If it's not a a big deal, why do you feel compelled to respond? Why
do you have to post about it at all?
Also, I know you're into bike art and I'm into bicycle sport, but the
fundamental role of the bicycle in society is for transportation.
It's a toy to some of us, but first and foremost it's for
transportation.
JT
Hell and High Water
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> Quoting Hell and High Water <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net>:
> >I, on the other hand, would clearly be dead, had I not had one on that
> >day.
>
> Who volunteered for you repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted
> head?
>
> Or, in other words, "clearly", nothing. Like everyone else with a "saved
> my life" story, you're almost certainly deluded. You suffered non-fatal
> injuries to the rest of the body - why suppose that the injuries to the
> very toughest part of the body would have been fatal?
Since I hit my head hard enough to knock myself out for a while, and
wipe out my memory for a while, AND destroy the helmet, I hate to
imagine what would have happened to my head had I not been wearing the
helmet....
You are correct, in that I cannot perform a 'with' and 'without'
experiment. It is merely an assumption that the obvious severe head
injury would have resulted in death.
However, most people missed my point entirely.
I'm simply saying: 'Feel free to wear a helmet or not. It makes no
difference to me, as I'll have a helmet on, should I fall again.'
-Bob
Bill Sornson
> Yikes touy would think this is about the Arab-Israeli conflict or
> abortion or something...it's about a plastic hat on your head while
> you use that toy called a bicycle...
Again, we /really/ could have used you about three months ago! <eg>
Bill Sornson
First of all, TOLD YA SO! (That you'd get flamed, ridiculed and insulted
for your heresy of posting about a personal experience and resulting
choice.)
Secondly, glad you're still riding. Lots of people get spooked after a
crash like yours and never really "get back on the horse".
Lastly, thanks for posting about it. I don't understand why so many are so
threatened by what you wrote; even your last remark ('Feel free to wear a
helmet or not. It makes no difference to me, as I'll have a helmet on,
should I fall again.') will draw their ire.
Roll on.
David Damerell
>dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>>Quoting Hell and High Water <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net>:
>>>I, on the other hand, would clearly be dead, had I not had one on that
>>>day.
>>Who volunteered for you repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted
>>head?
>wipe out my memory for a while, AND destroy the helmet, I hate to
>imagine what would have happened to my head had I not been wearing the
>helmet....
Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
>You are correct, in that I cannot perform a 'with' and 'without'
>experiment. It is merely an assumption that the obvious severe head
>injury would have resulted in death.
An assumption, and a completely unjustified one.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Quoting Hell and High Water <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net>:
>>dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>>>Quoting Hell and High Water <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net>:
>>>>I, on the other hand, would clearly be dead, had I not had one on that
>>>>day.
>>>Who volunteered for you repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted
>>>head?
>>Since I hit my head hard enough to knock myself out for a while, and
>>wipe out my memory for a while, AND destroy the helmet, I hate to
>>imagine what would have happened to my head had I not been wearing the
>>helmet....
>
>Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
>case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
>crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
>
>>You are correct, in that I cannot perform a 'with' and 'without'
>>experiment. It is merely an assumption that the obvious severe head
>>injury would have resulted in death.
>
>An assumption, and a completely unjustified one.
I share David Damerell's dissapointment with the "would certainly have
died" stories we hear about helmets. I just don't understand why
people have to exagerrate about the effect of helmets.
Hell and High Water had brain injuries -- that's serious. It seems to
me enough to say something like "the helmet absorbed some of the
impact -- I think the injuries would have been worse without it.'
That's plausible without hyperbole.
Similarly I don't understand why people say there's not drawbacks to
wearing a helmet -- going so far as to say, for example, they don't
contribute to the head being any hotter or there is no reason not to
wear one. It's much more reasonable to say "They're pretty
comfortable" or "They're comfortable in most situations."
Hell and High Water
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
> case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
> crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
That's a joke.
You're making VERY little sense with statements like that...
-Bob
Sandy
Sandy
Hell and High Water
says...
'...helmets are 85 to 88% effective in mitigating head and brain
injuries...'
Well, he was close with his 10% figure...
-Bob
John Forrest Tomlinson
<tifo...@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:
>In article <44ce2751$0$18841$626a...@news.free.fr>, leu...@frreee.fr
>> >
>> >
>> http://www2.braintrauma.org/news/article.php?id=64
>
>
>'...helmets are 85 to 88% effective in mitigating head and brain
>injuries...'
LOL.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
Hell and High Water wrote:
> dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>
>
> > Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
> > case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
> > crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
>
>
> That's a joke.
>
It's also part of the AHZ "boilerplate" response.
> You're making VERY little sense with statements like that...
>
>
Just wait, it gets better. You haven't seen the "Do you wear a helmet
whilst walking?" or the "Helmets increase injuries." BS yet.
Are these AHZs nuts? IMO, the answer is a resounding "YES!".
Qui si parla Campagnolo
I don't get the emotion involved....as for responding, this is a
discussion group so I was discussing something that happened to me...
As for the US and the bike...I ride everyday, I ride much more than I
drive, BUT in the USA, the primary role of the 'bicycle' is far from
transportation, mostly just a leisure time activity, a toy, like golf
clubs..may be different for you, may be your transportation and it is
for some but it just ain't so in the good ole USA...I would like it to
be so, but it just sin't in 99% of the places in the USA.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
There is emotion involved because we live in a society with vast
numbers of cars that effect our foreign policy and the environment,
and in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to get people to
walk or ride to work or for errands. If's a bad situation which
effects our society deeply in a lot of ways.
So I object to people who are in leadership roles in cycling talking
about them primarily as toys. If you do, you're playing right into the
spiral of marginalzing cycling. That's unfortuante and is worth
strong objections.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
I am desribing the situation as it is. You can do what ever you want to
make bicycles a more important part of US society but unless a few
things happen, like sacrcity of fuel, a more centralized living
enviornment, easier places to ride after the above, it just isn't going
to happen. Getting there on a bicycle has to be as easy as driving
there, and that will never be the case unless driving just isn't
possible. You are dealing with decades of brain washing about cars and
this fundamental change in society will be next to impossible unless
this society crumbles, and there is no gas.
It's great to say the car is bad and bicycles are good, but except for
saying that, how do you get the people in say, Memphis, to ride instead
of drive. And then how in a place that isn't warm all year, like
Detroit? How do you do it? Feel good solutions don't work. The majority
of people don't do it cuz it's a good idea. It has to be cheap and easy
or it isn't going to happen.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
Also, what you say about most bike use being for toy use *might* be
true, but are you sure it is? I don't know. For sure in your shop
and in my racing club it seems it is, but when I go outside in my city
the majority of people on bikes appear to be commuting or are
deliverypeople. In my city it's reported that regular bike riding
averages about 120,000 people per day. I *think* that's mainly
commuting and deliverypeople.
Maybe if we add up all the people who ride in the course of, say, a
year, the majority of people do it for leisure -- because we have the
people who only ride occasionally for fun. But in terms of total hour
on the bike, I think transportation trumps leisure.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>I am desribing the situation as it is. You can do what ever you want to
>make bicycles a more important part of US society but unless a few
>things happen, like sacrcity of fuel, a more centralized living
>enviornment, easier places to ride after the above, it just isn't going
>to happen.
Do you think mocking people who point out the negativee effect the
"wear a helmet" thing has on this is a good idea? Why say it? What's
your point if the effect makes a bad situation worse? Why not
actually take a stand?
Qui si parla Campagnolo
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 06:07:37 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >I am desribing the situation as it is. You can do what ever you want to
> >make bicycles a more important part of US society but unless a few
> >things happen, like sacrcity of fuel, a more centralized living
> >enviornment, easier places to ride after the above, it just isn't going
> >to happen.
>
> Do you think mocking people who point out the negativee effect the
> "wear a helmet" thing has on this is a good idea? Why say it? What's
> your point if the effect makes a bad situation worse? Why not
> actually take a stand?
'Mock people? WTF are you talking about? Negative effect of wearing a
helmet? Is wearing a helmet responsible for less poeple riding? Sorry,
ya lost me...
John Forrest Tomlinson
Saying the bike is just a toy. That's mocking. It's a toy perhaps
for me and my racing buddies and you and your customers, but it's
transportation for many people. Vital transporation for some.
> Negative effect of wearing a
>helmet? Is wearing a helmet responsible
> for less poeple riding? Sorry,
>ya lost me...
Yes -- it's making riding out to be especially dangerous and requiring
special safety equipment, when in fact it's about as dangerous as lots
of other things we do w/o special equipment. Why do that?
Qui si parla Campagnolo
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 06:28:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >'Mock people? WTF are you talking about?
>
> Saying the bike is just a toy. That's mocking. It's a toy perhaps
> for me and my racing buddies and you and your customers, but it's
> transportation for many people. Vital transporation for some.
Oh please....that's ridiclous...
>
> > Negative effect of wearing a
> >helmet? Is wearing a helmet responsible
> > for less poeple riding? Sorry,
> >ya lost me...
>
> Yes -- it's making riding out to be especially dangerous and requiring
> special safety equipment, when in fact it's about as dangerous as lots
> of other things we do w/o special equipment. Why do that?
Welll, when compared to a lot of things , when compared to walking for
instance, even if only because you are traveling faster, it IS more
dangerous. Not 'dangerous', "danger Will Robison!!' dangerous, but more
dangerous. I think it does take special skills and require a small
amount of safety equipment...kinda like a baseball helmet when you play
in a league...it doesn't make people shy away from baseball, because
people think it's especially dangerous...I think you are blowing this
whole thing way out of proportion and taking this bicycle and helmet
thread way too seriously. In the grand scheme of things, it is just not
that important...not worth wringing your hands over, not worth a single
'whoa is me' in my opinion...
Sandy
"woe" - I think you mean
my bike doesn't respond to "whoa"
my daughter's horses do, however
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
How 'bout saying "whoa" to all the cries of "woe" regarding helmet use?
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 06:28:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >'Mock people? WTF are you talking about?
>
> Saying the bike is just a toy. That's mocking. It's a toy perhaps
> for me and my racing buddies and you and your customers, but it's
> transportation for many people. Vital transporation for some.
>
> > Negative effect of wearing a
> >helmet? Is wearing a helmet responsible
> > for less poeple riding? Sorry,
> >ya lost me...
>
> Yes -- it's making riding out to be especially dangerous and requiring
> special safety equipment, when in fact it's about as dangerous as lots
> of other things we do w/o special equipment. Why do that?
>
There are many things that discourage greater bicycle use in the US:
hostile, ill-educated drivers, poorly designed roads, a lack of
bicycle "parking", snobby, CF-riding, lycra-clad "roadies" who ignore
traffic rules, etc., etc.
IMO, helmet use is way, way, way down the list....
Sojourner
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> There are many things that discourage greater bicycle use in the US:
> hostile, ill-educated drivers, poorly designed roads, a lack of
> bicycle "parking", snobby, CF-riding, lycra-clad "roadies" who ignore
> traffic rules, etc., etc.
>
> IMO, helmet use is way, way, way down the list....
Hell, its not even ON the list.
The major thing that discourages people from riding bike more often in
the US is sheer laziness.
A major (not THE major, but one of...) factor in discouraging continued
bike riding by some who take it up is the loud-mouthed snobbery of a
significant minority of the cycling crowd who measure one's worth by
whether or not you're wearing the proper cycling uniform ($150
skin-tight jerseys), who made your bike, what components are on it and
whether or not you know or care, whether or not you count cadence, pull
on the upstroke (which requires clipping in), know how to ride in a
paceline (or even know what a paceline IS) and etc etc etc.
Helmets, yes or no, don't factor into it at all.
Sojourner
I once listened to a bunch of lycra-clad wannabe racers sitting around
after a ride (that, as usual, I got dropped on in the first 5 blocks,
but hey, I rode past several of them later on the uphills) complaining
about the weight of the frames of their bikes. Most of these guys had
at least 20 lbs they could stand to lose, but they were sitting there
talking about drilling HOLES in their frames to "lighten" them (by a
matter of milligrams!).
So I just offhandedly said, "Drill holes in your water bottles, that'll
lighten the load quite a bit". Which a couple thought was a real good
idea - until it FINALLY dawned on them what the consequences of
drilling a hole in your water bottle would be.
I may be slow on the downhills, but at least I'm not slow upstairs!
LOL!
Bill Sornson
> On 1 Aug 2006 06:07:37 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>> I am desribing the situation as it is. You can do what ever you want
>> to make bicycles a more important part of US society but unless a few
>> things happen, like sacrcity of fuel, a more centralized living
>> enviornment, easier places to ride after the above, it just isn't
>> going to happen.
>
> Do you think mocking people who point out the negativee effect the
> "wear a helmet" thing has on this is a good idea? Why say it? What's
> your point if the effect makes a bad situation worse? Why not
> actually take a stand?
I'm guessing that John was /really/ good at Dodge Ball as a kid. LOL
Qui si parla Campagnolo
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 05:50:56 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >As for the US and the bike...I ride everyday, I ride much more than I
> >drive, BUT in the USA, the primary role of the 'bicycle' is far from
> >transportation, mostly just a leisure time activity, a toy, like golf
> >clubs..may be different for you, may be your transportation and it is
> >for some but it just ain't so in the good ole USA...I would like it to
> >be so, but it just sin't in 99% of the places in the USA.
>
> Also, what you say about most bike use being for toy use *might* be
> true, but are you sure it is? I don't know. For sure in your shop
> and in my racing club it seems it is, but when I go outside in my city
> the majority of people on bikes appear to be commuting or are
> deliverypeople. In my city it's reported that regular bike riding
> averages about 120,000 people per day. I *think* that's mainly
> commuting and deliverypeople.
Think away..I have lived and ridden all over the US, while in the
USNavy...and ya know, not many people ride in Tampa or Phoenix, for
instance.
>
> Maybe if we add up all the people who ride in the course of, say, a
> year, the majority of people do it for leisure -- because we have the
> people who only ride occasionally for fun. But in terms of total hour
> on the bike, I think transportation trumps leisure.
Think what ya like, I can only describe what I see here and other
places I have lived. In Denver, transportation does not 'trump' leisure
time riding on a bicycle. Would like it to be like the Neth\erlands,
where most eveybody lives, works and retires in a smaller community,
where bike paths are as important as roads for cars, but it isn't so
and it isn't going to be so...so fretting about it doesn't help it. But
once again, how Do you get the populace onto a bicycle in Memphis,
barring a world wide crisis??
Bill Sornson
>> On 1 Aug 2006 06:28:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>> 'Mock people? WTF are you talking about?
>> Saying the bike is just a toy. That's mocking. It's a toy perhaps
>> for me and my racing buddies and you and your customers, but it's
>> transportation for many people. Vital transporation for some.
> Oh please....that's ridiclous...
Welcome to arguing with JFT.
>>> Negative effect of wearing a
>>> helmet? Is wearing a helmet responsible
>>> for less poeple riding? Sorry,
>>> ya lost me...
>> Yes -- it's making riding out to be especially dangerous and
>> requiring special safety equipment, when in fact it's about as
>> dangerous as lots of other things we do w/o special equipment. Why
>> do that?
> Welll, when compared to a lot of things , when compared to walking for
> instance, even if only because you are traveling faster, it IS more
> dangerous. Not 'dangerous', "danger Will Robison!!' dangerous, but
> more dangerous. I think it does take special skills and require a
> small amount of safety equipment...kinda like a baseball helmet when
> you play in a league...it doesn't make people shy away from baseball,
> because people think it's especially dangerous...I think you are
> blowing this whole thing way out of proportion and taking this
> bicycle and helmet thread way too seriously. In the grand scheme of
> things, it is just not that important...not worth wringing your hands
> over, not worth a single 'whoa is me' in my opinion...
One last time: WHERE WERE YOU THREE MONTHS AGO?!? LOL
Bill Sornson
> Sandy wrote:
>> my bike doesn't respond to "whoa"
>> my daughter's horses do, however
> How 'bout saying "whoa" to all the cries of "woe" regarding helmet
> use?
Whoa, whoa, whoa the boat?
Qui si parla Campagnolo
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:55:11 -0500, Hell and High Water
> <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <44ce2751$0$18841$626a...@news.free.fr>, leu...@frreee.fr
>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> http://www2.braintrauma.org/news/article.php?id=64
> >
> >
> >'...helmets are 85 to 88% effective in mitigating head and brain
> >injuries...'
>
> LOL.
>
helmet use bugs you, I don't understand. WGAS anyway. If yer gonna
worry about what somebody says about something bicycle, make a stance
on BS marketing about bike 'stuff'...or just ride your bike, it feels
good ya know. I'm out-
> ****************************
Bill Sornson
> On 1 Aug 2006 05:50:56 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>> As for the US and the bike...I ride everyday, I ride much more than I
>> drive, BUT in the USA, the primary role of the 'bicycle' is far from
>> transportation, mostly just a leisure time activity, a toy, like golf
>> clubs..may be different for you, may be your transportation and it is
>> for some but it just ain't so in the good ole USA...I would like it
>> to be so, but it just sin't in 99% of the places in the USA.
> Also, what you say about most bike use being for toy use *might* be
> true, but are you sure it is? I don't know. For sure in your shop
> and in my racing club it seems it is, but when I go outside in my city
> the majority of people on bikes appear to be commuting or are
> deliverypeople. In my city it's reported that regular bike riding
> averages about 120,000 people per day. I *think* that's mainly
> commuting and deliverypeople.
And you think those people /shouldn't/ wear helmets? Why?
> Maybe if we add up all the people who ride in the course of, say, a
> year, the majority of people do it for leisure -- because we have the
> people who only ride occasionally for fun. But in terms of total hour
> on the bike, I think transportation trumps leisure.
One could argue that people who ride 1-2 hours a day for transportation or
4-5 hours a day for livelihood need lids even /more/ than people who just go
out for an hour or three on Sunday afternoon.
Short Sig Sorni
John Forrest Tomlinson
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> Do you think mocking people who point out the negativee effect the
>> "wear a helmet" thing has on this is a good idea? Why say it? What's
>> your point if the effect makes a bad situation worse? Why not
>> actually take a stand?
>
>I'm guessing that John was /really/ good at Dodge Ball as a kid.
What does that mean?
John Forrest Tomlinson
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:55:11 -0500, Hell and High Water
>> <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <44ce2751$0$18841$626a...@news.free.fr>, leu...@frreee.fr
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> http://www2.braintrauma.org/news/article.php?id=64
>> >
>> >
>> >'...helmets are 85 to 88% effective in mitigating head and brain
>> >injuries...'
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>Then for DD and you-don't wear one...why somebody says something about
>helmet use bugs you, I don't understand.
Do you believe that statistic above? If you're in the cycling industry
and you believe and repeat that stat, you're irresponsible.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 1 Aug 2006 05:50:56 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As for the US and the bike...I ride everyday, I ride much more than I
>>> drive, BUT in the USA, the primary role of the 'bicycle' is far from
>>> transportation, mostly just a leisure time activity, a toy, like golf
>>> clubs..may be different for you, may be your transportation and it is
>>> for some but it just ain't so in the good ole USA...I would like it
>>> to be so, but it just sin't in 99% of the places in the USA.
>
>> Also, what you say about most bike use being for toy use *might* be
>> true, but are you sure it is? I don't know. For sure in your shop
>> and in my racing club it seems it is, but when I go outside in my city
>> the majority of people on bikes appear to be commuting or are
>> deliverypeople. In my city it's reported that regular bike riding
>> averages about 120,000 people per day. I *think* that's mainly
>> commuting and deliverypeople.
>
>And you think those people /shouldn't/ wear helmets?
Did I say that? I hope that they actually look at helmet use
critically, and not wear them just because of false statements about
helmets or unrealistic fears of cycling or because some dope says that
all serious cyclists wear helmets so helmets must be a good idea.
And I don't think false statements should be made about helmets.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
Or really *bad* at dodge ball (as in "got hit in the head a few times
too often").
David Damerell
>dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>>Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
>>case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
>>crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
>That's a joke.
No, it isn't. Both the impact resistance of helmets and skulls are pretty
well-known. (Did yours squash, not crack?)
The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so makes
extremely effective use of its material and is made of a material very
effective for the task; and it's much heavier than a helmet. It is
therefore obviously much tougher even absent measurements of the energy
needed to crack it.
As I say; you suffered non-fatal injuries to the rest of the body; why
assume the injuries to the very toughest part would have been fatal?
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
David Damerell
>injuries...'
That's TRT comparing the then population of helmet wearers - the offspring
of suburban yuppies riding on bike paths in gated communities - with
inner-city kids often riding unlit and/or drunk at night.
They also found a similar reduction in knee injuries; go figure.
Even TRT admit the 85% figure is bogus these days. Do a _little_ research
before you spout, eh?
Bill Sornson
> The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so makes
> extremely effective use of its material and is made of a material very
> effective for the task;
So are feet. Would you undertake trail running unshod?
> and it's much heavier than a helmet.
But what about those oppressive ROTATIONAL FORCES exerted by that relatively
lightweight (by your own admission) lid?
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
Damerell seems to be saying that, given that the impact was not
sufficient to be fatal or cause a skull fracture, the OP may as well
have wacked his head uncovered as helmeted.
Perhaps Damerall would like to be the "uncovered" control in a little
test of this premise?
Dane Buson
> David Damerell wrote:
>
>> The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so makes
>> extremely effective use of its material and is made of a material very
>> effective for the task;
>
> So are feet. Would you undertake trail running unshod?
Errr, what's wrong with that? I wouldn't do it, but evidently quite a
few people do:
http://www.barefootrunner.org/
http://www.barefootrunner.org/links.htm
Wasn't there recently a few African runners winning marathon's unshod?
I know the 1960 Gold medal winner Abibe Bikila won without them...
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
It typically takes 25-30 gallons of petrol/diesel to fully-consume an
average-sized body under ideal conditions. That I am conversant with
this level of detail should serve as an indication of why the wise man
does not ask me questions about MS-Windows. --Tanuki the Raccoon-dog
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>
>>> The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so
>>> makes extremely effective use of its material and is made of a
>>> material very effective for the task;
>>
>> So are feet. Would you undertake trail running unshod?
>
> Errr, what's wrong with that? I wouldn't do it, but evidently quite a
> few people do:
>
> http://www.barefootrunner.org/
> http://www.barefootrunner.org/links.htm
Quick perusal didn't show any TRAIL running, but the question remains:
would YOU run trails barefooted?
> Wasn't there recently a few African runners winning marathon's unshod?
>
> I know the 1960 Gold medal winner Abibe Bikila won without them...
Don't doubt it for a second.
Would you climb a ladder with small round steps barefoot? It all has to do
with Damnitall's point that the skull has evolved to handle things like bike
crashes. Same true of...baseballs thrown at 95 mph? (American) Football
collisions? Etc. etc. etc...
Off for a rainy day ride, Bill S.
Dane Buson
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Bill Sornson <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>> David Damerell wrote:
>>>
>>>> The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so
>>>> makes extremely effective use of its material and is made of a
>>>> material very effective for the task;
>>>
>>> So are feet. Would you undertake trail running unshod?
>>
>> Errr, what's wrong with that? I wouldn't do it, but evidently quite a
>> few people do:
>>
>> http://www.barefootrunner.org/
>> http://www.barefootrunner.org/links.htm
>
> Quick perusal didn't show any TRAIL running, but the question remains:
> would YOU run trails barefooted?
Well, I wouldn't run trails or anywhere else shod or unshod. There's a
reason people invented bicycles. Sheesh. What's the difference between
'trail' running and other types of running? [1]
>
>> Wasn't there recently a few African runners winning marathon's unshod?
>>
>> I know the 1960 Gold medal winner Abibe Bikila won without them...
>
> Don't doubt it for a second.
>
> Would you climb a ladder with small round steps barefoot?
I have in the past, not that I particularly recommend the practice.
> It all has to do with Damnitall's point that the skull has evolved to
> handle things like bike crashes. Same true of...baseballs thrown at
> 95 mph? (American) Football collisions? Etc. etc. etc...
Which reminds me very much of this possibly aprocryphal story [2]:
http://www.kokusai-senshu-tokukai.org/heroes_or_zeros.htm
"A Tennessee high school football player was paralyzed from the chest
down this weekend when, frustrated by a close loss in a state playoff
game, he put on his helmet, sprinted several feet, and butted headfirst
into a wall outside the locker room." What drove this A student to trade
his sensibilities for life in a wheelchair? Why did he allow football,
nothing more than a game, to become much more than a game? The answer:
the young man couldn't stand the thought of losing. His principal said,
"He was a highly competitive person. There was just no place for second
in his life."
It smacks of Risk Compensation to me personally. I doubt somehow he
would have taken a run at the wall if he didn't have the helmet on...
> Off for a rainy day ride, Bill S.
Always a good idea. It's sunny and 69 degrees, and I'm planning on
going cycling from downtown with some gentlemen I know tonight. It
looks a fine day for riding indeed.
[1] I'm not being cute, I'm genuinely ignorant of any differences.
[2] I've heard it before, but it's not on snopes, who knows.
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
After sifting through the overwritten remaining blocks of Luke's home
directory, Luke and PDP-1 sped away from /u/lars, across the surface of the
Winchester riding Luke's flying read/write head. PDP-1 had Luke stop at the
edge of the cylinder overlooking /usr/spool/uucp.
"Unix-to-Unix Copy Program;" said PDP-1. "You will never find a more
wretched hive of bugs and flamers. We must be cautious."
-- DECWARS
Sojourner
> Well, I wouldn't run trails or anywhere else shod or unshod. There's a
> reason people invented bicycles. Sheesh. What's the difference between
> 'trail' running and other types of running? [1]
Sticks, stones, thorns, animal poo..... well you might see animal poo
on pavement anyway, but you get the drift.
Sojourner
Dane Buson
Ick. So not much different than riding on the road here in Washington. [1]
Looking at the google, there are quite a few hits for '"trail running"
barefoot'. So, evidently there are plenty of crazy people out there
who do this sort of thing.
OffTopic: It's oddly... hypnotic (SFW) [2]:
http://www.netnebulo.hu/loituma_clock.swf
[1] I'm only partially joking. Blackberry is invasive and pervasive
here, I've ridden across brambles on the road plenty of times
here.[4]
[2] Safe For Work [3]
[3] Unless you're company has some strange policy about leeks.
[4] Yes, all you goathead thorn sufferers, I know I live in a virtual
paradise compared to you. Quiet.
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
"Nobody gets out of the Bermuda Triangle.
Not even for lunch."
Robin Hubert
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> If it's not a a big deal, why do you feel compelled to respond? Why
>>>> do you have to post about it at all?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I know you're into bike art and I'm into bicycle sport, but the
>>>> fundamental role of the bicycle in society is for transportation.
>>>> It's a toy to some of us, but first and foremost it's for
>>>> transportation.
>>>>
>>> I don't get the emotion involved....as for responding, this is a
>>> discussion group so I was discussing something that happened to me...
>>>
>>> As for the US and the bike...I ride everyday, I ride much more than I
>>> drive, BUT in the USA, the primary role of the 'bicycle' is far from
>>> transportation, mostly just a leisure time activity, a toy, like golf
>>> clubs..may be different for you, may be your transportation and it is
>>> for some but it just ain't so in the good ole USA...I would like it to
>>> be so, but it just sin't in 99% of the places in the USA.
>> numbers of cars that effect our foreign policy and the environment,
>> and in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to get people to
>> walk or ride to work or for errands. If's a bad situation which
>> effects our society deeply in a lot of ways.
>>
>> So I object to people who are in leadership roles in cycling talking
>> about them primarily as toys. If you do, you're playing right into the
>> spiral of marginalzing cycling. That's unfortuante and is worth
>> strong objections.
>
> I am desribing the situation as it is. You can do what ever you want to
> make bicycles a more important part of US society but unless a few
> things happen, like sacrcity of fuel, a more centralized living
> enviornment, easier places to ride after the above, it just isn't going
> there, and that will never be the case unless driving just isn't
> possible. You are dealing with decades of brain washing about cars and
> this fundamental change in society will be next to impossible unless
> this society crumbles, and there is no gas.
>
> It's great to say the car is bad and bicycles are good, but except for
> saying that, how do you get the people in say, Memphis, to ride instead
> of drive. And then how in a place that isn't warm all year, like
> Detroit? How do you do it? Feel good solutions don't work. The majority
> of people don't do it cuz it's a good idea. It has to be cheap and easy
> or it isn't going to happen.
Cheap and easy or ... necessary.
>> JT
>>
>> ****************************
>> Remove "remove" to reply
>> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
>> ****************************
>
Robin Hubert
John Forrest Tomlinson
The problem with most of these analogies -- trailrunning, American
football and ladder climbing -- is that they involve protection
against incidents that will almost certainly or certainly happen. If
you run on a trail you will almost certainly step on rocks. In
American football, you will get hit in the head hard, every single
game. WIth a ladder, you will step on the rungs. For sure. Probably
in a season or two of pro baseball the athlete will get hit a few
times
It seems Sorni is trying to equate those to head injuries in cycling,
which *may* happen but on the vast majority of rides will *not*
happen. In fact, over a lifetime of normal road cycling, they might
not happen at all. Or only happen a handful of times.
So the analogy is dopey and false.
Pat Lamb
> Quoting Hell and High Water <tifo...@OVEcomcast.net>:
>> '...helmets are 85 to 88% effective in mitigating head and brain=20
>> injuries...'
>
> That's TRT comparing the then population of helmet wearers - the offspring
> of suburban yuppies riding on bike paths in gated communities - with
> inner-city kids often riding unlit and/or drunk at night.
>
> They also found a similar reduction in knee injuries; go figure.
>
> Even TRT admit the 85% figure is bogus these days. Do a _little_ research
> before you spout, eh?
As I understand it, the right figure is something like 61%, and that's
statistically insignificant. Do you have a citation I can use to make
this argument? Web pages are all very fine for spreading information,
but a journal article (or letter) wins arguments.
Pat
Bill Sornson
Typical. You missed the point. (Hint: had to do with evolution and
adaptation; see Damnitall's original comment above -- I'm shocked you didn't
trim it! LOL )
Had NOTHING to do with probabilities (completely separate topic/issue). HTH
> So the analogy is dopey and false.
Typical. Even allowing for /your/ false premise (inserting probability into
simple adaptation), how many times has the average baseball player been hit
by a fastball (not a slow curve or change-up) *IN THE HEAD* in his lifetime?
Do you have any idea how rare it is?
So by your logic, batting helmets are "dopey".
As usual, you're picking arguments just to be a prick. Works better when
you at least have a somewhat valid point.
Please consider this constructive advice. (That's fairly close to your
disingenuous, smarmy pap, I hope; unlike you, I don't keep a file of your
"best hits".)
jtaylor
"Bill Sornson" <sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote in message
news:kFJAg.10229$Ta6....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> how many times has the average baseball player been hit
> by a fastball (not a slow curve or change-up) *IN THE HEAD* in his
lifetime?
>
> Do you have any idea how rare it is?
>
No. Do you?
Please tell us.
Would someone perhaps, playing baseball for 450 years 24 hours a day be
likely to be hit more than once?
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote:
>Even allowing for /your/ false premise (inserting probability into
>simple adaptation), how many times has the average baseball player been hit
>by a fastball (not a slow curve or change-up) *IN THE HEAD* in his lifetime?
I may be wrong on that one, as I don't know. Do you have any idea?
More importantly, do you have any idea how often the average cyclist
will have a head injury that's more than a scrape but mild enough to
be prevented by a helmet?
If not, shut up.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote:
Don't hint -- spell it out to show how wrong I was. Please. I don't
think you can.
Bill Sornson
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:25:04 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote:
>
>> Even allowing for /your/ false premise (inserting probability into
>> simple adaptation), how many times has the average baseball player
>> been hit by a fastball (not a slow curve or change-up) *IN THE HEAD*
>> in his lifetime?
>
> I may be wrong on that one, as I don't know. Do you have any idea?
>
> More importantly, do you have any idea how often the average cyclist
> will have a head injury that's more than a scrape but mild enough to
> be prevented by a helmet?
Well, it's happened to me twice and to a number of fellow cyclists I know,
so it can't be THAT "exceedingly rare". (Your question, of course, is a
Catch-22 -- look closely and you'll get it.)
> If not, shut up.
Your dodging (AND deleting! LOL ) the question is noted.
Do you think batting helmets are unnecessary? Yes or no? (After all, the
human head is so /evolved/ and all...)
Bill Sornson
Sigh. His point was (hell, I'll just go get it:) "The skull has been
subject to millenia of selection pressure, so makes extremely effective use
of its material and is made of a material very effective for the task".
So I asked about some /other/ activities and natural selection
(adaptation) -- including getting hit by a 95-mph fastball. You then went
into /probabilities/, which had nothing to with Damnitall's original point
about the skull being evolved enough to handle a bike crash.
PS: I didn't say you were "wrong", I said you missed the point. You did.
Totally. Again.
HTH
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote:
What do bare feet on a ladder have to with Damerell's point? What does
trail running have to do with Damerell's point?
Bill Sornson
Not "a ladder" -- a ladder with thin round steps. (IOW, bare feet will hurt
like hell -- sort of why people wear stiff-soled work shoes for construction
jobs.) As for trail running, unless it's buff singletrack with no rocks,
roots, ruts, etc., nearly everyone would wear -- now this may shock you --
trail running shoes specially made with more tread than regular running
shoes.
The POINT is that people wear adaptive and protective equipment for all
kinds of activities. Damnitall said the human skull has evolved to such
resilience that a cycling helmet is unnecessary. So I asked about batting
helmets -- is the head similarly impervious to a strike (no pun) from a
fastball?
The fact that he never replied indicates that he was likely just trolling.
The fact that you're pretending to not be able to follow a simple thread or
understand simple terms indicates that you're just being an obtuse,
disingenuous prick. As usual.
HTH
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote:
>Not "a ladder" -- a ladder with thin round steps. (IOW, bare feet will hurt
>like hell -- sort of why people wear stiff-soled work shoes for construction
>jobs.) As for trail running, unless it's buff singletrack with no rocks,
>roots, ruts, etc., nearly everyone would wear -- now this may shock you --
>trail running shoes specially made with more tread than regular running
>shoes.
Ah, now you are making the analogy to which I objected.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote:
>The POINT is that people wear adaptive and protective equipment for all
>kinds of activities. Damnitall said the human skull has evolved to such
>resilience that a cycling helmet is unnecessary.
The real point is that is protection that we know helps because the
problem occurs often and we can easily judge it's effectiveness. And
there is protection for remote events that are unlikely to occur.
> So I asked about batting
>helmets -- is the head similarly impervious to a strike (no pun) from a
>fastball?
Is you back impervious to a bullet?
Are you fingers impervious to a car door closing on them?
And on the batting helments thing -- I said one thing so far -- that I
don't know the odds of that sort of injury occuring.
Here's another thing -- I greatly object to people who equate what is
reasonable in atheletic competion with what is reasonable in daily
life. And like it or not, cycling is a part of some people's daily
lives.
You may think that people out commuting on their bike in street
clothes are not real "cyclists" but from your perspective on helmet us
in San Diego to your using the Tour of France as evidence to your
using images from the governing body of bike *racing* in the UK as
evidence of the extent of helmet us in that country, it's clear you
are one of those sporty/enthusiast cyclists who is caught up in the
gear and the plumage to show the world that you take things seriously.
And that's a messed up attitude that is too comon in the cycling
world.
Bill Sornson
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:49:07 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote:
>
>> Not "a ladder" -- a ladder with thin round steps. (IOW, bare feet
>> will hurt like hell -- sort of why people wear stiff-soled work
>> shoes for construction jobs.) As for trail running, unless it's
>> buff singletrack with no rocks, roots, ruts, etc., nearly everyone
>> would wear -- now this may shock you -- trail running shoes
>> specially made with more tread than regular running shoes.
> Ah, now you are making the analogy to which I objected.
You're so slimy I'm surprised a chair will hold you. (Note: my analogy was
about human body parts supposedly evolving so no adaptive/protective
equipment is necessary, as per Damnitall's statement. You introduce
probability into the discussion and then "object" to an already established
analogy using your additional parameters. It's sneaky, disingenuous, and
most of all flatly dishonest.)
Thanks for verifying what an obtuse weasel and prick you are. I'll consider
your future comments and arguments accordingly.
Sorno
Bill Sornson
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:49:07 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote:
>
>> The POINT is that people wear adaptive and protective equipment for
>> all kinds of activities. Damnitall said the human skull has evolved
>> to such resilience that a cycling helmet is unnecessary.
>
> The real point is that
What's with this latest habit of replying twice to everything? First one
just a rough draft?
You've proven your true nature yet again; all future remarks considered
accordingly.
Sandy
Why in the 19th century, even having adapted to cover horseriding falls,
the low angle fall from early cycles is critical to the species.
Ditto for adapting and morphing as the automobile came along, and then
the airplane.
Even as we speak, proto-skulls are gathering calcium, etc., to cope with
the advent of space exploration.
Rapid, accurate adaptive mutation is scientific ! Really. Not just
selection, where the clumsy clowns die off, but conscious change by design.
Didn't you know this stuff ? It's well documented. Just ask David.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
- Someone who knows too much finds it hard not to lie.?
- Wittgenstein, L.
jtaylor
[for the benefit of those new to usenet and the method of indicating quotes,
the portion of this post below prefixed by ONE quote mark (">") was written
by "Sorni"]
>
> The POINT is that people wear adaptive and protective equipment for all
> kinds of activities. Damnitall said the human skull has evolved to such
> resilience that a cycling helmet is unnecessary. So I asked about
batting
> helmets -- is the head similarly impervious to a strike (no pun) from a
> fastball?
>
But how likely is such an incident?
With major league teams getting somewhere between 30 and 50 HBP's a season
(sometimes more), it seems much more likely than a cyclist getting a major
head injury - after all, we know that cyclists deaths (many of which are not
caused by head injury) occur roughly once per 450 years of cycling 24 hours
a day non-stop.
Impervious or not, if the cyclist's head essentially never gets hit, there
is no need for a helmet. If you are a baseball player instead, there may be
a case for such.
If you believe that there is, perhaps you could add to your letters to the
editors and your local legal representatives (you HAVE been writing these,
haven't you, as you claim to be against MHL's even though your state has
one) requesting that at the same time as they repeal the cyclist MHL they
institute one for all baseball players.