motorcycle hatz
finding z0
here, I've tried the baseball cap forwards, backwards, not sideways,
and always dread it flying off. Any suggestions on what makes a good
hat (the helmet, i know, i have one, i use it mostly) that doesn't
fling off over 45 mph, and doesn't need to be tourniquetted around the
braincase? I don't care to go any faster on those short renewing
jaunts after work after rush hour etc. I'm 63 and can afford to
die.....
Keith Schiffner
"finding z0" <js...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1179153865....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> I'm 63 and can afford to
> die.....
Uh, no you can't. Trust me, run draino through the arteries and you'll be fine.
63 is the new 35. Honest injun!
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
You could find a couple of those clips that Jewish guys use to keep the
yarmulke covering the bald spot. That is, if you have enough hair
'round the edge to use the clips.
Or, just wear the yarmulke. Lots of those seen here in my village. (Oh
wait, they might be beanie helmets! About as effective as a yarmulke.)
> I'm 63 and can afford to die.....
<lol>
--
-bts
-Baseball cap chin straps: a buck-two-ninety-eight each.
PirateJohn
I'll bet that your creditors have a different opinion.
mpa...@aol.com
> "finding z0" <j...@excite.com> wrote in message
Bless you, young man.
Timberwoof
finding z0 <js...@excite.com> wrote:
Quit being a dumbass; wear your helmet when you ride.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
sleazy rider
Just go getcha one of them framing nailers and put a couple shots in
the top while wearing the hat. Trust me, you won't hurt anything
vital.
finding z0
> Just go getcha one of them framing nailers and put a couple shots in
> the top while wearing the hat. Trust me, you won't hurt anything
> vital.
I tried that but the wind noise pisses me off, Next?
"Quit being a dumbass; wear your helmet when you ride."
Quit being a scold. Besides, I'm too olde to change.....
"I'll bet that your creditors have a different opinion."
I said i could afford to die....
"Bless you, young man."
And so unto you as well......
Hats people, doo rags, bandanas work?
Batters helmet?
Hunter
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:jQ_1i.17127$yM2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
...or just superglue the hat to his head.
We're not talking about practicality and concerned about good sense in this
guy's situation, are we?
BrianNZ
I too go for the occasional helmetless ride. It clears the head at a
slower speed than usual. It's illegal here so 'time and place' become
important. :)
If it's a bit cold, I wear a woolen 'beanie' or one of those cotton
balaclava's (usually worn under helmets) rolled up to look like a
'beanie' (otherwise people will think youv'e just robbed a bank!).
They stay on OK at 60 mph.....
Paladin
I see little need for impact protection, given the narrow range of
impact speeds that a "crash" helmet can handle. Abrasion protection
is a different matter -- but for that all you need is a layer of
decent leather:
http://www.uswings.com/avcap.asp -- "Snoopy" Leather Flying Cap --
Charlie Siegrist
<1179153865....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> looks like finding
z0 <js...@excite.com> sounds like:
>...stupid....
Well, a bandana folded in a triangle and tied at teh back probably works.
When I wear that (soaked in water under my helmet), it tends to stay on the
head when I remove the helmet to soak it again. Further, many MC catalogs
will sell an assortment of doo-rags built to the purpose.
But this begs the question: if you are ready to die, what's sunburn matter?
Dean Hoffman
There is always something like this:
http://tinyurl.com/3yuo6s
High visibility too.
Dean
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
BrianNZ
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 16:29:41 -0700, Charlie Siegrist
> <chamars...@spam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Circa 14 May 2007 07:44:25 -0700 recorded as
>> <1179153865....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> looks like finding
>> z0 <js...@excite.com> sounds like:
>
>> When I wear that (soaked in water under my helmet), it tends to stay on the
>> head when I remove the helmet to soak it again. Further, many MC catalogs
>> will sell an assortment of doo-rags built to the purpose.
>>
>> But this begs the question: if you are ready to die, what's sunburn matter?
>
> watering hole.
There's more to it than just style (which differs from person to
person). Not wearing a helmet gets you back out in the sun with the wind
in your face. The riding style changes to match the feeling
(vulnerability?) and becomes a cruise, rather than the mad dashing about
that goes on when 'safety' gear is involved. No false illusions about
what will happen if you bin it.
Helmets are like safety belts, they are only useful if you crash.
Stupendous Man
Bob Myers
"BrianNZ" <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message
news:f2avn0$ubb$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> Helmets are like safety belts, they are only useful if you crash.
And like safety belts, when and if you DO crash, you won't regret
having one on.
Have you ever heard ANYONE say they regretted wearing their
helmet?
Bob M.
BryanUT
"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4648ef1a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>
> I see little need for impact protection, given the narrow range of
> impact speeds that a "crash" helmet can handle. Abrasion protection
> is a different matter -- but for that all you need is a layer of
> decent leather:
>
I like my face. That is why I wear a full face helmet all the time.
If you want to wear a leather mask, go for it. hehe.
Btw, if you ever watch MotoGP, WSB or AMA racing you will see how effective
helmets are.
BryanUT
Bzzzzzzt! Wrong. Rain, cold, sun, bugs, road debris, etc. Helmets are very
useful even if you don't crash. They also make a great shopping cart at the
local store.
BrianNZ
> "BrianNZ" <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:f2avn0$ubb$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Helmets are like safety belts, they are only useful if you crash.
>
> And like safety belts, when and if you DO crash, you won't regret
> having one on.
Which is why the riding style changes when there's no helmet.
Too many people get hung up on this crashing thing.....I ride my bikes
differently each time I get on them...it depends on the weather,
traffic, mood, protective gear etc. If I decide to go fast, it's full
gear....and I don't crash. If I want to cruise, it's jeans, nylon
jacket, no gloves......and I don't crash.
I'm damned if I'll let a 'what if' ruin my ride.
>
> Have you ever heard ANYONE say they regretted wearing their
> helmet?
>
> Bob M.
>
>
I'm not saying 'don't wear a helmet'...I realise the safety they offer.
Think of it as sex without a condom....more 'feel' but you run the risk
of life threatening consequences.
Iv'e had a big off and the helmet did a wonderful job....scratched from
the chin guard to the top and around one side where the visor got ripped
off. The full leathers did a nice job of holding the broken bits
together until I got to hospital (femur poking through the leathers in
two places).
On the other hand, Iv'e had wonderful cruises around the backroads with
no helmet. I don't wear a helmet when riding around on farms either.
Paladin
wrote:
>
>"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:4648ef1a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>>
>> I see little need for impact protection, given the narrow range of
>> impact speeds that a "crash" helmet can handle. Abrasion protection
>> is a different matter -- but for that all you need is a layer of
>> decent leather:
>>
>
>I like my face. That is why I wear a full face helmet all the time.
Jesus! How often do you crash?
>If you want to wear a leather mask, go for it. hehe.
The link you deleted was for a leather pilot's cap.
>Btw, if you ever watch MotoGP, WSB or AMA racing you will see how effective
>helmets are.
Totally different situations.
If you are racing and not crashing you are a loser.
If you are not racing and crashing you are a loser.
Keith Schiffner
<mpa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179163530.5...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
To be fair I ment drain-o in the medical artery cleansing sense...to shit if it
confused you. ;^)
--
Keith Schiffner
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational
basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the
unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and
spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from
fiddling with it.
Robert Heinlein
Keith Schiffner
"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4648ef1a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
Your a good guy and it's nothing personal but when it comes to helmets you can
be as big a kook as Hen3y. No helmet is the same as being a brainless ballless
lump of asphalt encrusted piece of shit. IMO.
Keith Schiffner
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 21:12:05 -0600, "BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>news:4648ef1a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>>>
>>> I see little need for impact protection, given the narrow range of
>>> impact speeds that a "crash" helmet can handle. Abrasion protection
>>> is a different matter -- but for that all you need is a layer of
>>> decent leather:
>>>
>>
>>I like my face. That is why I wear a full face helmet all the time.
>
> Jesus! How often do you crash?
Excuse me asshat? How often do you NOT eat a cigerettt butt?? A ROCK? etc... and
don't give me that bullshit cocksucking excuse of "I have a windshield" It does
SHIT! I've had them and STILL you get bugs birds and Phyliss Shafly coming over
the edges and hitting you in the head or face...fuck those damn things a full
face IS the only protection that works you cannanite!
>
>>If you want to wear a leather mask, go for it. hehe.
>
> The link you deleted was for a leather pilot's cap.
>
Which does no good what so ever...just like your advice on helmets you damned
Hen3y clone.
>>Btw, if you ever watch MotoGP, WSB or AMA racing you will see how effective
>>helmets are.
>
> Totally different situations.
No it isn't but you aren't educated enough to LEARN anything valid, real or
useful.
>
> If you are racing and not crashing you are a loser.
> If you are not racing and crashing you are a loser.
I know you are a loser... damn you are REALLY coming off sounding like Hen3y.
Keith Schiffner
been almost force fed a LIVE rock pigeon. The open faced helmet (with clear
visor) was as useful as spiting on a firestorm.
Fuck that open faced/beanie no helmet I gots a doo-rag crowd. I avoid people
THAT stupid.
Turby
(Paladin) wrote:
>Jesus! How often do you crash?
Once was enough. I would have died 27 years ago if I hadn't been
wearing one. The guy hit me on purpose. No matter how diligent you
are, no matter how much training you've had, or how safe you think you
are, if someone wants to ram their vehicle into you on purpose, you'll
need a helmet. Aw, hell, why am I doing this again. Trying to convince
you of the value of helmets is useless. I _know_ there are crazy
people out there who would just as soon hit me as not. They're in the
LA Times every day. You could be one of them.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I like my face. That is why I wear a full face helmet all the time.
>
> Jesus! How often do you crash?
How many faces do you have?
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
finding z0
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 16:29:41 -0700, Charlie Siegrist
>
> >Circa 14 May 2007 07:44:25 -0700 recorded as
> >But this begs the question: if you are ready to die, what's sunburn matter?
>
> Well, ya gots to look stylish while putzing down the road to the local
> watering hole.
RU kidding? It takes me 3 hours to comb the 3 hairs I have left.
Shaving my head wouldn't be a good look for me. The sunburn thing I
hadn't thought of. I bought some over the eyeglasses goggles Birdz
"Buzzards". Man are they ugly. Never saw them on a head, just a
picture of them standing there. Anyone wanna take them off my hands?
They don't fit under a baseball cap either. Thanks for the link to the
leather cap. That's a possibility..
Paladin
<schi...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:46492d7d....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 21:12:05 -0600, "BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4648ef1a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>>>>
>>>> I see little need for impact protection, given the narrow range of
>>>> impact speeds that a "crash" helmet can handle. Abrasion protection
>>>> is a different matter -- but for that all you need is a layer of
>>>> decent leather:
>>>>
>>>
>>>I like my face. That is why I wear a full face helmet all the time.
>>
>> Jesus! How often do you crash?
>
>Excuse me asshat? How often do you NOT eat a cigerettt butt?? A ROCK? etc... and
>don't give me that bullshit cocksucking excuse of "I have a windshield" It does
>SHIT! I've had them and STILL you get bugs birds and Phyliss Shafly coming over
>the edges and hitting you in the head or face...fuck those damn things a full
>face IS the only protection that works you cannanite!
A 3/4 with a bubble shield served me just fine in the past.
Cigarette butts, rocks, birds, and/or Phyliss -- never. A couple of
bugs, but the only critical impact area would be the eyes, and they
are protected by goggles. The city streets of Los Angeles does not
involve many flying objects such as bugs, rocks, etc..
....
>>>Btw, if you ever watch MotoGP, WSB or AMA racing you will see how effective
>>>helmets are.
>>
>> Totally different situations.
>
>No it isn't but you aren't educated enough to LEARN anything valid, real or
>useful.
Oh? You ride the city streets as if they are your private race track?
>> If you are racing and not crashing you are a loser.
>> If you are not racing and crashing you are a loser.
>
>I know you are a loser... damn you are REALLY coming off sounding like Hen3y.
You come off sounding like speeding and crashing is how you are
supposed to ride on city streets.
Paladin
<a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
>Paladin wrote:
>
>> "BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> I like my face. That is why I wear a full face helmet all the time.
>>
>> Jesus! How often do you crash?
>
>How many faces do you have?
Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
BryanUT
>
> Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
> helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
> experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
You do need a full face helmet to protect your face. A 3/4 helmet won't
help your face.
You should never assume anything. I have yet to crash on the street,
because I practice collision avoidance and other defensive driving
techniques.
BryanUT
>
>>>>Btw, if you ever watch MotoGP, WSB or AMA racing you will see how
>>>>effective
>>>>helmets are.
>>>
>>> Totally different situations.
>>
>>No it isn't but you aren't educated enough to LEARN anything valid, real
>>or
>>useful.
>
> Oh? You ride the city streets as if they are your private race track?
>
Man you are dense. You can just as easily high side or low side driving
well within the law on the street as on a track.
Besides your point was that helmets only work in a narrow speed range. That
is bullshit. Helmets seem to work real well at speeds from near zero to
150+ mph. That is not a narrow range.
I don't really care if you wear a helmet or not. It is your body. Just
say, "I choose to ride without a helmet." Don't try and justify it by
saying helmets don't work, they block out noise or the impair vision.
Timberwoof
ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
Why do you "have to" assume it was from personal experience? It doesn't
have to be, you know. Some of us are smart enough to learn from the
experience of others. For example, I have seen other people's badly
bashed-up helmets and their uninjured heads. I'm convinced.
I prefer collision avoidance, too, but unlike you, I'm not so arrogant
as to believe that I am Stupendous Man and able to avoid any and all
collisions. I ride carefully and hope that whatever risks I can't avoid
that way, I can minimize by wearing protective gear.
This seems to be an ego thing for you: It's as though wearing a helmet
would be admitting that you might not be perfect. It would be admitting
that you might encounter a situation you can't handle, or仇orse yet逆hat
you might screw up.
Well, I hope you don't screw up. I'd buy life insurance on you, but not
health insurance.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Paladin wrote:
>>> "BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> I like my face. That is why I wear a full face helmet all the
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> Jesus! How often do you crash?
>>
>> How many faces do you have?
>
> Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
> helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
> experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
So do I. Now tell that to the deer that jumped off the bank directly in
front of me, at 65+ mph. The chin of the helmet was ground two-thirds of
the way through.
But wait! If I had been wearing a 3/4 (or no) helmet, chances are that
my new plastic surgeon could have made me a handsome man. Darn, what an
opportunity squandered.
Keith Schiffner
Say that after you get a Pigeon in the face...no damn bubble visor will help.
BTDT and want those damned bird extinct and the sooner the better!
--
Keith Schiffner
Assistant to the Assistant Undersecretary of the Ministry of Silly Walks.
"terrorist organization" is a redundancy
Paladin
wrote:
>
>"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:464a44a4...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>>
>> Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
>> helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
>> experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
>
>You do need a full face helmet to protect your face. A 3/4 helmet won't
>help your face.
Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
What am I protecting it from?
Why would I want to strap over three pounds to my head which will
stop me from doing the constant 360 degree scans that have kept me
untouched on city streets for 40 years? When it comes to safety, a
helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway.
>You should never assume anything. I have yet to crash on the street,
>because I practice collision avoidance and other defensive driving
>techniques.
If you don't crash, why wear a heavy helmet that causes fatigue?
Do you have some magical device that negates the inertial mass of a
helmet? After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
(streets, driveways, etc..) So now, by LAW, I have to blindly trust
other drivers to not run a stopsign/redlight.
Paladin
wrote:
>
>"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:464a420e...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>>
>>>>>Btw, if you ever watch MotoGP, WSB or AMA racing you will see how
>>>>>effective
>>>>>helmets are.
>>>>
>>>> Totally different situations.
>>>
>>>No it isn't but you aren't educated enough to LEARN anything valid, real
>>>or
>>>useful.
>>
>> Oh? You ride the city streets as if they are your private race track?
>>
>
>Man you are dense. You can just as easily high side or low side driving
>well within the law on the street as on a track.
Bullshit. How often do people crash while racing compared with street
driving? Average for the street is roughly one collision per 50,000
miles of motorcycle travel -- and that average includes newbies,
drunks, etc..
>Besides your point was that helmets only work in a narrow speed range. That
>is bullshit. Helmets seem to work real well at speeds from near zero to
>150+ mph. That is not a narrow range.
Banging my head into a wall at 0 mph will result in no damage, with
or without a helmet. Banging my head into a wall at 150 mph will
result in death, with or without a helmet. Crash helmets are only
effective in a fairly narrow range of impact speed -- below the helmet
is not needed, above the helmet is overwhelmed.
>I don't really care if you wear a helmet or not. It is your body. Just
>say, "I choose to ride without a helmet." Don't try and justify it by
>saying helmets don't work, they block out noise or the impair vision.
I never said any of those things.
Paladin
<schi...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>Say that after you get a Pigeon in the face...no damn bubble visor will help.
>BTDT and want those damned bird extinct and the sooner the better!
I'm more likely to be stuck by lightning on a clear day.
Timberwoof
ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:49:07 -0600, "BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:464a44a4...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> >>
> >> Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
> >> helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
> >> experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
> >
> >You do need a full face helmet to protect your face. A 3/4 helmet won't
> >help your face.
>
> Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
> What am I protecting it from?
Sliding on the pavement.
> Why would I want to strap over three pounds to my head which will
> stop me from doing the constant 360 degree scans that have kept me
> untouched on city streets for 40 years?
You have clearly not worn a full-face helmet and you don't know what
you're talking about.
> When it comes to safety, a
> helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
> being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway.
You are free to show statistics that back up this opinion.
> >You should never assume anything. I have yet to crash on the street,
> >because I practice collision avoidance and other defensive driving
> >techniques.
>
> If you don't crash, why wear a heavy helmet that causes fatigue?
Wear a light helmet that protects your head, keeps bugs and rocks off
your face, keeps you dry, keeps you warm...
> Do you have some magical device that negates the inertial mass of a
> helmet? After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
> I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
> (streets, driveways, etc..) So now, by LAW, I have to blindly trust
> other drivers to not run a stopsign/redlight.
Obviously you're a couch potato, too, unable to condition your body to
additional needs. And a helmet isn't all that heavy...
Mark Olson
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:49:07 -0600, "BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>news:464a44a4...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>>
>>>Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
>>>helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
>>>experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
>>
>>You do need a full face helmet to protect your face. A 3/4 helmet won't
>>help your face.
>
>
> Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
> What am I protecting it from?
<Odinn>
You are one stupid fuck.
</Odinn>
You don't like wearing helmets. Fine. Don't wear one.
But do yourself a big favor and stop coming up with *bullshit*
reasons why they're harmful and they won't help you in a collision.
You can also give up this idea that you've got superior skills,
and that means you don't need a helmet to protect you. Plenty of
highly skilled riders have crashed, and many more will crash in
the future. The ones wearing helmets *will* suffer fewer injuries
to the head and the face.
Somehow I don't think you are smart enough to change your tune,
based on the crap you've been spewing about helmets in the past.
That's OK, I can live with your abject stupidity. I'm used to
dealing with lots of it in my life (my own and others). I have
managed to get smart enough to learn that I can be wrong and I
do try not to broacast my stupidity to a worldwide audience on
multiple occasions after I've been told what I am saying is
wrong.
--
'01 SV650SK1 '99 EX250-F13 '98 ZG1000-A13
OMF #7
J. Clarke
What leads you to believe that "banging my head into a wall" is the most
likely cause of injury?
Road rash on the face ain't fun.
If you ride into a bridge abutment at 150 mph you're going to die. But
if you end up flying over a Cadillac and sliding down the road a piece
(a far more likely scenario) then your subsequent utility depends
greatly on what you are wearing.
>> I don't really care if you wear a helmet or not. It is your body.
>> Just say, "I choose to ride without a helmet." Don't try and
>> justify it by saying helmets don't work, they block out noise or the
>> impair vision.
>
> I never said any of those things.
No, your argument is that without them you can turn your head like Lind
Blair in the Exorcist.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Charlie Siegrist
<464a8db5...@news.la.sbcglobal.net> looks like
ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) sounds like:
> Why would I want to strap over three pounds to my head which will
>stop me from doing the constant 360 degree scans that have kept me
>untouched on city streets for 40 years?
Interesting. My immediate vision is that a helmet may now be considered an
exorcism device, if that reference is not too vague for the younger crowd.
If I may address some of your points:
"Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
What am I protecting it from?"
Probably the most compelling example I can give is of my old friend Ray,
who highsided on a back road in the deserts of California. He broke his
jaw and sundry other bones in his face, and underwent several painful
reconstructive surgeries. He's regretted not having worn a full-face ever
since. So, there's that, for one. Now mind you, that's a simple example
given as an answer to your question. It's not an invitation to an
argument, because a simple statement of fact is not arguable. Fair?
" Why would I want to strap over three pounds to my head which will
stop me from doing the constant 360 degree scans that have kept me
untouched on city streets for 40 years?"
Seriously, your head spins around like an owl's? I don't get that
statement at all. Are mirrors to be assumed? Making assumptions in a
usenet discussion is always dicey. Please explain.
"When it comes to safety, a
helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway."
A simple statement of fact. Good. Can that statement be backed up by
evidence? A funded study, perhaps? Insurance statistics? Love to see.
"If you don't crash, why wear a heavy helmet that causes fatigue?"
If that statement can be ammended to say, "If you will never crash..." then
I see the point. However, not too recently I could confidently say, "I
have found my mate for life, I will be happy forever!" Then came cancer.
The point is, who can see the future? So, we all do constant risk-benefit
analyses. Your analysis leads you to believe that you will never crash
your bike, therefore you need no crash protection. Fine for you, but
personally, while I understand and have experienced the joy of riding with
an unencumbered melon, I don't often care to take the increased risk. I
accept my personal responsibility in the matter. (Here I must state that I
am not in league with some JFK assassination buffs; I believe the head is
very much like a melon).
"Do you have some magical device that negates the inertial mass of a
helmet?"
Well, I have neck muscles. If I had a neck problem that made moving my
head painful or difficult, that problem would likely be exacerbated by
wearing a helmet. But then, the problem is there, regardless of the
wearing of the helmet. Barring existing physical impairment, I don't see a
problem.
"After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
(streets, driveways, etc..)"
I hate to sound snippy, but that sounds like a "you" problem. My guess is
that you have fallen into bad habits out of spite for the law. For
example,
"So now, by LAW, I have to blindly trust
other drivers to not run a stopsign/redlight."
Yeah. Like that.
Keith Schiffner
ROTFLMAO
I've ridden a couple thousand miles in thunderstorms and was never struck by
lightning... Yet I've been hit by a pigeon and damn near hit by more than I care
to count. So the measurement you provide you are wrong. 8^)
Hell even a bicycle helmet will save your life...check chicken noodle news just
ran a piece about one that had his head run over by a truck. He only got a
concussion.
CGroth
> Circa Wed, 16 May 2007 06:33:31 GMT recorded as
> <464a8db5...@news.la.sbcglobal.net> looks like
> ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) sounds like:
> "Do you have some magical device that negates the inertial mass of a
> helmet?"
>
> Well, I have neck muscles. If I had a neck problem that made moving my
> head painful or difficult, that problem would likely be exacerbated by
> wearing a helmet. But then, the problem is there, regardless of the
> wearing of the helmet. Barring existing physical impairment, I don't see a
> problem.
>
I have had a recurring neck pain, that, in the past, rears its head a
couple of days a month. When I started riding again seven months ago, I
did have some concern in this regard. And in fact, I did have a
recurrence a few weeks after riding awhile. However, now that I have
been able to ride more often, I have noticed my neck muscles have gotten
stronger, and I have not had neck pain since.
Helmets are not that heavy. Your body can easily adapt to wearing them.
I had been wearing a full-face helmet that I had borrowed from my dad
for about four months. Then I learned that helmets only last about five
years, and that mine was about fourteen years old! I quickly replaced it
with a flip-face helmet (for eye glasses) that is lighter and quieter
that the older full-face. A flip-face is not a protective as a true
full-face, but better than a 3/4. I understand that contemporary
full-faces are lighter and quieter that flip-faces, so there is NO
excuse to not where one or the other, in my opinion.
My boys enjoy wearing the old full-face and pretending to be astronauts
or Darth Vader. So old helmets can still be useful :-)
> "After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
> I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
> (streets, driveways, etc..)"
>
> I hate to sound snippy, but that sounds like a "you" problem. My guess is
> that you have fallen into bad habits out of spite for the law. For
> example,
>
With either my full-face or flip-face I have no trouble turning my head
to look for traffic. I may not be able to turn my head 360°, but I can
manage to look straight behind me by turning my head 90° and turning my
eyes full to the side.
> "So now, by LAW, I have to blindly trust
> other drivers to not run a stopsign/redlight."
>
Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
cgroth
'95 LS650 Savage
Paladin
<timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>In article <464a8db5...@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
> ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:49:07 -0600, "BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> >news:464a44a4...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>> >>
>> >> Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
>> >> helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
>> >> experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
>> >
>> >You do need a full face helmet to protect your face. A 3/4 helmet won't
>> >help your face.
>>
>> Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
>> What am I protecting it from?
>
>Sliding on the pavement.
I don't do that.
>> Why would I want to strap over three pounds to my head which will
>> stop me from doing the constant 360 degree scans that have kept me
>> untouched on city streets for 40 years?
>
>You have clearly not worn a full-face helmet and you don't know what
>you're talking about.
It is a simply fact of physics that the inertial mass of the helmet
will increase the force required to turn the head. It is physically
impossible to turn your head as fast with a helmet as without.
>> When it comes to safety, a
>> helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
>> being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway.
>
>You are free to show statistics that back up this opinion.
Let me change that from you (plural, people in general) to me.
Watching others I know that I am a far more observant driver than
people in general. I also have far fewer collisions than people in
general. I do not care to be reduced to their level.
>> >You should never assume anything. I have yet to crash on the street,
>> >because I practice collision avoidance and other defensive driving
>> >techniques.
>>
>> If you don't crash, why wear a heavy helmet that causes fatigue?
>
>Wear a light helmet that protects your head, keeps bugs and rocks off
>your face, keeps you dry, keeps you warm...
You avoided the question. With just one exception FF helemts all
weigh over three pounds. Even the lightest DOT beanie is over a pound
and a half -- but the DOT beanie only protects from the law.
>> Do you have some magical device that negates the inertial mass of a
>> helmet? After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
>> I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
>> (streets, driveways, etc..) So now, by LAW, I have to blindly trust
>> other drivers to not run a stopsign/redlight.
>
>Obviously you're a couch potato, too, unable to condition your body to
>additional needs. And a helmet isn't all that heavy...
And you are superman, with massive neck muscles capable of snapping
your head from center to 45 degrees left to 45 degrees right and back
to center in a half second, repeated every five seconds as you ride
through the city. I worship your mightyness. May I be allowed to
ride a motorcycle also? Or should I get massive SUV and stop worrying
about running into things or havin thing run into me.
Paladin
No. Not that either. Don't you look for people approaching on
intersecting side streets who may run the stop? On many intersections
you cannot see 60 feet down the intersecting street until you are
within 60 feet of crossing the limit line. At 35 mph you have just a
hair over a second to scan for moving vehicles, figure their path, and
possibly take evasive action. How do you manage?
Or do you just play the odds that there is no one there. Admittedly
you can do that and will most likely ride 1,000,000 miles without a
problem.
Bob Myers
>
> Why would I want to strap over three pounds to my head which will
> stop me from doing the constant 360 degree scans that have kept me
> untouched on city streets for 40 years? When it comes to safety, a
> helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
> being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway.
You, of course, have data that will show that wearing a helmet
increases your risk of a collision?
And it's funny, but my full-face sure doesn't seem to impede
MY ability to do a scan (not 360 degrees, though - I DO
have neck vertabrae...). I also ride a bike which is equipped
with this amazing new miracle technology...they're called
"mirrors."
Why this insistence on some bogus "it's safer!" attempt at
defending your choice not to wear a helmet? Just say,
"Sure, I realize the increased risk, and I choose not to wear
one anyway." I don't think anyone here would have a
problem with that.
If not, then a suggestion - you'd be a lot more credible if
you could point to just one person who's said, "Yeah, I
crashed, and boy do I regret the fact that I was wearing
a helmet at the time. "
Bob M.
Bob Myers
> It is a simply fact of physics that the inertial mass of the helmet
> will increase the force required to turn the head. It is physically
> impossible to turn your head as fast with a helmet as without.
But it's still completely possible to turn it as fast as it needs to
turn (which is determined, ultimately, by the eye-brain system's
ability to see, process, and respond to visual cues), and that's
all that matters. Anything faster than that is irrelevant.
> Let me change that from you (plural, people in general) to me.
> Watching others I know that I am a far more observant driver than
> people in general. I also have far fewer collisions than people in
> general. I do not care to be reduced to their level.
So wearing a helmet would, in your opinion, automatically
"reduce you to that level"? Bummer. Must be terrible to
be able to be completely controlled by a little bit of plastic
like that.
> And you are superman, with massive neck muscles capable of snapping
> your head from center to 45 degrees left to 45 degrees right and back
> to center in a half second, repeated every five seconds as you ride
> through the city.
Who'd want to? I'm willing to bet that NO ONE does this, as a
scan encompassing two sweeps of a 90 degree included angle
within 0.5 second is too fast to let you actually perceive much of
anything within that field. You simply DO NOT scan in rapid,
smooth, large-angle continuous sweeps like that; instead, the
eye (and head position) change in very fast but relatively short-
distance jumps, and fixate briefly on distinct points within the
visual field. Examples based on the notion that your head moves
as though you were a bobble-head toy are utterly irrelevant.
Bob M.
J. Clarke
You're the one who's continually on about "360 degree scan". That means
that your head turns completely around like that of a praying mantis.
Nobody I know can do that with or without a helmet. If that's not what
you meant then perhaps you should write what you did mean instead of
expecting the rest of us to read your mind.
> Don't you look for people approaching on
> intersecting side streets who may run the stop? On many intersections
> you cannot see 60 feet down the intersecting street until you are
> within 60 feet of crossing the limit line. At 35 mph you have just a
> hair over a second to scan for moving vehicles, figure their path, and
> possibly take evasive action. How do you manage?
I don't see how the presence or absence of a helmet has an influence on
"managing" this particular scenario.
However if you are unable to complete the necessary scan at the speed
you are riding, then SLOW THE HELL DOWN!
> Or do you just play the odds that there is no one there. Admittedly
> you can do that and will most likely ride 1,000,000 miles without a
> problem.
I don't see where the alternatives are "don't wear a helmet" or "play
the odds". You're creating a false dilemma.
finding z0
why I tried to disarm the argument by calling it "stupid" helmetless
rides. I always wear my helmet when I expect to crash ;-). Anyway, I'm
thinking of picking up a $2 watch (Navy) type cap at the local Army-
Navy surplus store. That oughta stay on. I'm not the dew-rag bandanna
type. Paladin, bless you and yours, but don't even try to argue, that
train has left the station. Just do what you do and forget the
argument. I'll do the same. Cheers and out....
Chris H.
> Which is why the riding style changes when there's no helmet.
>
> Too many people get hung up on this crashing thing.....I ride my bikes
> differently each time I get on them...it depends on the weather,
> traffic, mood, protective gear etc. If I decide to go fast, it's full
> gear....and I don't crash. If I want to cruise, it's jeans, nylon
> jacket, no gloves......and I don't crash.
>
> I'm damned if I'll let a 'what if' ruin my ride.
i wont re-iterate how stupid riding without gear is, lord knows enough
people have already. instead, i want to tell you what happened to me 11
years ago.
i was 17, and of course being typical i thought nothing of 'what if'. i
spent the summer down in florida on my uncles farm. 80 acres of fun in
the sun. the main entertainment there short of riding the horses, were
riding the dirt bikes. 3 months i spent jumping bigger and bigger
jumps...with no gear. we were out in the open and the jumps were built
of very soft sand...soft enough that i figured if i bit it that it
wouldnt hurt so much because i'd have a soft area to land in.
so 2 months later, i was out alone on the 125cc having a blast jumping
jumps not thinking much of it. i went back for a quick snack and some
water. when i went back out to go at it some more something inside me
told me to grab the helmet...which i did. after going back out i got
into a nice rhythm and finally came to what i thought was yet another
jump. so there i am running a good 40mph or so and i hit this jump...it
was absolutely perfect. however, call it a brain fart or whatever...but
mid-air i had a thought cross my mind. something along the lines of 'oh
shit...i cant land this?!'...sure enough, i hit the ground and flipped
end over end. mind you this was a jump going from inside our little area
to a sort of grass/dirt mixture. during our tumbles i felt the bike
strike me in the head.
i got up, brushed myself off...noticing nothing was broken and the only
thing that happened were my forearms were scratched up a bit from the
grass. i instantly thought...'wow...its a good thing i wore this helmet'.
again, this wasnt a fact of adding the helmet making me feel more
comfortable and thinking i could do something i couldnt do. this jump i
had hit many times before...its just this one time happened to be that
bad time.
to me there isnt really a 'what if' other than 'crap...what if i wasnt
wearing this gear'. other than death and taxes being the two certain
things in life, there is one other...and thats shit happens. you wont
know when, you wont know where, and you probably wont know why at least
initially. the only thing you can do is prepare yourself in the chance
that shit does happen on that day.
personally, if you dont want to wear any gear...thats your choice. i
find myself on occasion wearing just my helmet, gloves, and boots for
local city rides. i know if i have an off that my arms, chest, back,
legs, etc will end up possibly rashed...thats a choice i make. however,
i also know its a lot less painful and unlikely to lead to my death than
face planting in anything less than a full face helmet or a bird
deciding it wants to cut in front of me at eye level right *now*.
-chris h.
BrianNZ
Thats not a 'what if'.....you were jumping. Thats something you decided
to do.
Bob Myers
"BrianNZ" <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message
news:f2fqs0$kr8$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Thats not a 'what if'.....you were jumping. Thats something you decided to
> do.
So is just firing the bike up and leaving the driveway.
EVERYTHING we're talking about here is "something
you decided to do," and NONE of those decisions
(with the possible exception of "stay at home, wrapped
in cotton, under an impervious unobtainium shell") can
reduce your risk of getting a Possbly Serious Boo-Boo
to zero.
Life itself is a fatal condition; no one gets out alive. The
best you can do is to make reasonable choices to
minimize your risks to an acceptable level. What
constitutes "acceptable," of course, varies from one
individual to the next, but there's little need to be out-and-
out stupid in one's choices, unless of course exiting
early is your goal anyway.
Bob M.
J. Clarke
> It wasn't my intention to start a helmet vs. no helmet battle, that's
> why I tried to disarm the argument by calling it "stupid" helmetless
> rides. I always wear my helmet when I expect to crash ;-). Anyway, I'm
> thinking of picking up a $2 watch (Navy) type cap at the local Army-
> Navy surplus store. That oughta stay on.
There was a TV series, "Then Came Bronson" many years ago, I think it
was the late '60s or early '70s, about a guy travelling about the
country on a motorcycle. He usually wore a watch cap when riding.
Hollywood being Hollywood though it may have been glued down.
> I'm not the dew-rag bandanna
> type. Paladin, bless you and yours, but don't even try to argue, that
> train has left the station. Just do what you do and forget the
> argument. I'll do the same. Cheers and out....
--
BrianNZ
> "BrianNZ" <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:f2fqs0$kr8$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Thats not a 'what if'.....you were jumping. Thats something you decided to
>> do.
>
> So is just firing the bike up and leaving the driveway.
Surely you don't start your bike without a helmet on....shock horror!
> EVERYTHING we're talking about here is "something
> you decided to do," and NONE of those decisions
> (with the possible exception of "stay at home, wrapped
> in cotton, under an impervious unobtainium shell") can
> reduce your risk of getting a Possbly Serious Boo-Boo
> to zero.
You should see me dressed in bubble wrap!
>
> Life itself is a fatal condition; no one gets out alive. The
> best you can do is to make reasonable choices to
> minimize your risks to an acceptable level. What
> constitutes "acceptable," of course, varies from one
> individual to the next, but there's little need to be out-and-
> out stupid in one's choices, unless of course exiting
> early is your goal anyway.
>
> Bob M.
>
>
So it's OK to have acceptable risks which vary from individual to
individual, but if they aren't on the same level as acceptable to *you*,
that person is stupid!?.....and the want to die!?
There is a big difference between me riding around on farmland without a
helmet (ever tried shouldering a rifle with a full face on?) and someone
practicing for the Crusty Demons jump show without a helmet.
Paladin
<chamars...@spam.cableone.net> wrote:
....
>If I may address some of your points:
>
>"Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
>What am I protecting it from?"
>
>Probably the most compelling example I can give is of my old friend Ray,
>who highsided on a back road in the deserts of California.
How? What did he do wrong? How does something that someone did on a
desert backraod have to do with riding in stop and go city traffic?
If I do not do what he did to cause the high side then the example is
meaningless.
>" Why would I want to strap over three pounds to my head which will
>stop me from doing the constant 360 degree scans that have kept me
>untouched on city streets for 40 years?"
>
>Seriously, your head spins around like an owl's?
No. But I do rotate my head rouhly 20 degrees to each side as I ride
so as to scan down intersecting streets for any incoming vehicles.
The road from my street to the main drag has residential street
intersections every 240 feet. At 35 mph you risk someone running the
stop sign every 4.67 seconds.
> I don't get that statement at all. Are mirrors to be assumed?
Mirrors can tell you if something is there.
Mirrors CANNOT tell you that nothing is there.
While I monitor my mirrors roughly every five seconds to keep track of
traffic behind me when I make a lane change I turn my head to look
beside/behind me to verify that no one is there before I make the
move.
> Making assumptions in a
>usenet discussion is always dicey. Please explain.
>
>"When it comes to safety, a
>helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
>being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway."
>
>A simple statement of fact. Good. Can that statement be backed up by
>evidence? A funded study, perhaps? Insurance statistics? Love to see.
Problem being that I am abnormal in my riding. Statistics cover
averages. I am not average. Since most people drive/ride
blissfully uncaring of most traffic hazards the increase in risk for
them is non-existant. They aren't looking anyhow.
>"If you don't crash, why wear a heavy helmet that causes fatigue?"
>
>If that statement can be ammended to say, "If you will never crash...
It cannot. We are dealing with possibilities and probabilities. I do
not claim that I will never crash. I claim that I am less likely to
crash without the mass of a helmet restricting the way I drive/ride --
which has been crash free for over 40 years. Given that avoiding a
collision means you will not be hurt and given that if you are
broadsided by a car doing 30 mph a helmet will not be doing you much
good anyhow -- I hold collision avoidance a higher priority than
possible collision survival.
>Your analysis leads you to believe that you will never crash
>your bike, therefore you need no crash protection.
No. I have *NEVER* stated that I will never crash. Your claim of my
analysis if a falsehood, a strawman you set up to attack in lieu of
addressing what I am actually posting.
> Fine for you, but
>personally, while I understand and have experienced the joy of riding with
>an unencumbered melon, I don't often care to take the increased risk.
I do not care for the increased risk of a collision.
>"Do you have some magical device that negates the inertial mass of a
>helmet?"
>
>Well, I have neck muscles.
Does not negate the inertial mass of a helmet. There is a reason
people can sell a two pound FF helmet for a thousand dollars when you
can get a three pound FF helmet for under $50.
>.... Barring existing physical impairment, I don't see a problem.
I do not have the ability to ignore the laws of physics.
>"After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
>I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
>(streets, driveways, etc..)"
>
>I hate to sound snippy, but that sounds like a "you" problem. My guess is
>that you have fallen into bad habits out of spite for the law. For
>example,
>
>"So now, by LAW, I have to blindly trust
>other drivers to not run a stopsign/redlight."
Are you claiming that you can scan 60 feet up and down each
intersecting street within 60 to 40 feet from entering the
intersection? I've watched other drivers and bikers -- I do not see
them doing so. Physical evidence that they do not is the rather
regular rate of collisions at controlled intersections.
Bob Myers
> So it's OK to have acceptable risks which vary from individual to
> individual, but if they aren't on the same level as acceptable to *you*,
> that person is stupid!?.....and the want to die!?
I'm sorry, do we have a reading comprehension problem
here, or what? Where, in anything I've written in this thread
or elsewhere, did I call anyone's decision "stupid"? Point
that out to me, please, would you?
What I have complained about is Paladin's nonsensical,
endless attempts at justifying his "no helmet" choice
with a bunch of bogus arguments about improved safety.
If he wants to ride without a helmet, it's fine by me; just
don't try to argue for that choice using some absurd notions
about how fast you can spin your head around, etc.. Call
it what it is - a personal choice - and be done with it.
Clearer, now?
Bob M.
BrianNZ
> "BrianNZ" <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:f2g1kk$1m2$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> So it's OK to have acceptable risks which vary from individual to
>> individual, but if they aren't on the same level as acceptable to *you*,
>> that person is stupid!?.....and the want to die!?
>
> I'm sorry, do we have a reading comprehension problem
> here, or what? Where, in anything I've written in this thread
> or elsewhere, did I call anyone's decision "stupid"? Point
> that out to me, please, would you?
................
................
> "but there's little need to be out-and-
> out stupid in one's choices"
...............
...............
>
> What I have complained about is Paladin's nonsensical,
> endless attempts at justifying his "no helmet" choice
> with a bunch of bogus arguments about improved safety.
He's been going for 40 years without a crash....maybe he has a point for
the way he rides and where he rides? What works for him may not work for
everyone....thats when the individual decides what is an acceptable risk.
> If he wants to ride without a helmet, it's fine by me; just
> don't try to argue for that choice using some absurd notions
> about how fast you can spin your head around, etc.. Call
> it what it is - a personal choice - and be done with it.
To you , it's personal choice, to him it's a safety issue. You say you
don't care yet you put his opinions in the absurd notions box just
because it's not the way you think.
>
> Clearer, now?
...as mud.
>
> Bob M.
>
>
Bob Myers
> While I monitor my mirrors roughly every five seconds to keep track of
> traffic behind me when I make a lane change I turn my head to look
> beside/behind me to verify that no one is there before I make the
> move.
Gee, that's funny - so do I. Full-face helmet 'n' all.
Imagine that. I never knew I had to have Superman's
neck muscles to do it.
> It cannot. We are dealing with possibilities and probabilities. I do
> not claim that I will never crash. I claim that I am less likely to
> crash without the mass of a helmet restricting the way I drive/ride --
You can claim that all you like, but you've given absolutely
no valid reason supporting that claim.
>>"After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
>>I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
>>(streets, driveways, etc..)"
>>
>>I hate to sound snippy, but that sounds like a "you" problem. My guess is
>>that you have fallen into bad habits out of spite for the law. For
>>example,
Yup - that IS a "you" problem. Read on...
> Are you claiming that you can scan 60 feet up and down each
> intersecting street within 60 to 40 feet from entering the
> intersection? I've watched other drivers and bikers -- I do not see
> them doing so. Physical evidence that they do not is the rather
> regular rate of collisions at controlled intersections.
Whether he's claiming it or not, I sure am. If it matters
so much to you, I'll invite you to ride behind me and see
at least one person doing so. In fact, I remembered your
earlier remarks along these lines while on the ride home
tonight, and verified, once again, that yes, I DO scan the
intersecting streets, full-face helmet and all. What I DON'T
do - and no one else does, either - is your nonsensical
"snap your head 45 degrees either way and back in a
half second." That's not the way humans look at things.
Most of us, at least, have eyes that rotate in their sockets -
and when you want to look at something to one side, it's
your EYES that snap there first, while the neck moves
relatively slowly to catch up. I checked myself, with your
notion in mind, as well - I can easily look 45 degrees from
straight ahead without moving my head AT ALL, and with
a little neck rotation can easily look straight left or right.
I don't have to move my head twice through a 90 degree
included angle to check intersections, and no one else
does either - at least assuming your vision is anything
remotely like normal. A typical helmet does NOT slow
your scan down appreciably, for the simple reason that
it never happens the way you describe it.
Bob M.
Scott
ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
>Problem being that I am abnormal in my riding. Statistics cover
>averages. I am not average.
Chances are that you aren't as good as you think you are. You don't control
all the variables. You're not that good. Nobody is that good.
Statistically, in a crash, you're better off wearing a helmet.
Statistically, there is NO DATA to suggest that wearing a helmet brings a
greater risk of getting into a collision.
You have an opinion. Fine. It's your choice. But you have no grounds to
argue your point, and you are doing everyone a disservice by misstating your
opinions and rationalizations as if they were facts.
-Scott
--
'73 CB450K
'82 CB900F (x2)
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
'01 ZG1000 (SWMBO)
Keith Schiffner
>>you're talking about.
>
> It is a simply fact of physics that the inertial mass of the helmet
> will increase the force required to turn the head. It is physically
> impossible to turn your head as fast with a helmet as without.
>
I do it all the time. That YOU can't do something doesn't mean that a normal
healthy person cannot. You argument is as empty and faceitious as anything that
cunt Jerry Fallwell ever said...nothing personal but that's how it comes across.
>>> When it comes to safety, a
>>> helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
>>> being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway.
>>
>>You are free to show statistics that back up this opinion.
>
> Let me change that from you (plural, people in general) to me.
> Watching others I know that I am a far more observant driver than
> people in general. I also have far fewer collisions than people in
> general. I do not care to be reduced to their level.
But your are a constant wreck compared to me...last wreck I was in was over 4
years ago and even then it was a numbnut with suspended license and no insurance
that turned left into my champange colored saturn...he should of gone to jail.
But he didn't the cops let the criminal who assaulted me with a F250 get away.
So that collisions wasn't my fault...That was the only wreck since 1982. No two
vehicle wrecks whilst riding and the only one was a simple lowside because a
tire became unusable. No real damage except the ego and at a nominal 35mph
incident I was able to hold my head up from a 6' drop. Something that apparently
you claim ONLY a super man can do, guess I'll change my name to Uber Mench.
>>> >You should never assume anything. I have yet to crash on the street,
>>> >because I practice collision avoidance and other defensive driving
>>> >techniques.
>>>
>>> If you don't crash, why wear a heavy helmet that causes fatigue?
>>
>>Wear a light helmet that protects your head, keeps bugs and rocks off
>>your face, keeps you dry, keeps you warm...
>
> You avoided the question. With just one exception FF helemts all
> weigh over three pounds. Even the lightest DOT beanie is over a pound
> and a half -- but the DOT beanie only protects from the law.
Uh my HJC doesn't weigh 3lbs. Keep trying...you are smart enough to come up with
good arguments and thus are smart enough to learn. Honestly I hope you drop your
blinders and learn.
>>> Do you have some magical device that negates the inertial mass of a
>>> helmet? After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
>>> I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
>>> (streets, driveways, etc..) So now, by LAW, I have to blindly trust
>>> other drivers to not run a stopsign/redlight.
>>
>>Obviously you're a couch potato, too, unable to condition your body to
>>additional needs. And a helmet isn't all that heavy...
>
> And you are superman, with massive neck muscles capable of snapping
> your head from center to 45 degrees left to 45 degrees right and back
> to center in a half second, repeated every five seconds as you ride
> through the city. I worship your mightyness.
Worship mine also as it's NOT hard except when riding at DOD+50. Most REAL
scanning never requires any real head turning. But yes during rush hour in
places like Seattle/Tacoma/Olypmia, DFW, Austin(worse than DFW) San Antonio, OKC
and riding from Ft Hood to Witchita. Yep it's real, real hard...NOT!
--
Keith Schiffner
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational
basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the
unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and
spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from
fiddling with it.
Robert Heinlein
May I be allowed to
Keith Schiffner
You think that's HARD!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Dude that's as easy as pi. I
manage quiet easily...SIPDE.
> Or do you just play the odds that there is no one there. Admittedly
> you can do that and will most likely ride 1,000,000 miles without a
> problem.
Whose playing the odds? Beanies are as useful for protection as a G-string and a
pair of pasties.
Mike Young
>> your head from center to 45 degrees left to 45 degrees right and back
>> to center in a half second, repeated every five seconds as you ride
>> through the city. I worship your mightyness.
Yeah, that can get tiresome. I think my neck can take it. But the eyeballs
and soft cranial tissue... I might just prefer someone run me over so I can
stop. Or is it just not as vigorous a turn as you're making it out to be?
You're sure you're not missing out on your normal scan -- or normal scan for
the rest of us -- when you do this? You know, looking out for
left-turn-Betty who won't see you, and you won't see her, as she pulls out
and across in front of you just as you do your whip snap head turn thing.
You sure you got her covered?
The normal person, and I'm not accusing you of that, blinks when they turn
their head. Are you sure there's none of that going on? Even if there's not,
will you see her as your center of vision sweeps by at 240 degrees per
second? (60 deg. left to 60 deg. right, in half a second.) I think not.
Just how briefly is your attention drawn away from dead ahead, where the
*most* likely danger lies, as you whipsaw your head, entering the danger
zone at intersections? I'm guessing a semi-leisurely turn to the left; some
dwell time while the eyeballs settle and focus; a hard twist to the right;
settle and focus; and a semi-leisurely turn to front; blink, settle and
focus. What do you figure? 2 seconds? A bit more? A bit less?
Paladin
<boat04...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>Just how briefly is your attention drawn away from dead ahead, where the
>*most* likely danger lies, as you whipsaw your head, entering the danger
>zone at intersections? I'm guessing a semi-leisurely turn to the left; some
>dwell time while the eyeballs settle and focus; a hard twist to the right;
>settle and focus; and a semi-leisurely turn to front; blink, settle and
>focus. What do you figure? 2 seconds? A bit more? A bit less?
Well under a half second, and I don't blink. Straight ahead has the
advantage of not being obscured -- blind intersections are. Except
legally they are not blind intersections because they are controlled.
Wayne
"finding z0" <js...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1179153865....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> . I'm 63 and can afford to
> die.....
I'm 67 and my wife said I'd kill myself on my bike and I said I'd die
happy. She said just make sure you do kill yourself because I don't want to
burdened with a paraplegic
Wayne
86 Venture
finding z0
I loved the idea of that series. The star was considered a "James
Dean" type. Maybe that's deciding my choice. BTW, I'm riding a
restored '81 Yamaha twin 650XS Special. A bike I test drove back in
'81, but didn't buy. I bought a Hinda 750 SS block 4. Kept it a year
and decided i was finished with all that (I had bikes in the 60's). 25
years later, last fall i bought this here thing. Don't ride much,but
love looking at it in the garage, kick starting in, and taking off in
1st gear. If the glue doesn't work, the nail gun idea is still out
there...
Bob Myers
>> "but there's little need to be out-and-
>> out stupid in one's choices"
Right - and now tell us how, exactly, that points to any
particular choice as stupid. You might ASSUME that
I'm talking about your particular personal choice, whatever
that might be, but that would be an assumption on your
part - perhaps rooted in the fact that you, yourself, consider
that choice to be "stupid" when you actually stop to think
about it.
Bob M.
BrianNZ
Considering what the thread is about, your comments were taken in that
context. Were you commenting on something else?
David Steuber
> Uh, no you can't. Trust me, run draino through the arteries and you'll be fine.
> 63 is the new 35. Honest injun!
Not to hear a 21yo girl say it.
--
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels.
--- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling
Charlie Siegrist
<464b993f...@news.la.sbcglobal.net> looks like
ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) sounds like:
>On Wed, 16 May 2007 06:12:02 -0700, Charlie Siegrist
><chamars...@spam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>....
>
>>If I may address some of your points:
>>
>>"Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
>>What am I protecting it from?"
>>
>>Probably the most compelling example I can give is of my old friend Ray,
>>who highsided on a back road in the deserts of California.
>
>How? What did he do wrong? How does something that someone did on a
>desert backraod have to do with riding in stop and go city traffic?
>If I do not do what he did to cause the high side then the example is
>meaningless.
Your question was why you might need a full face helmet to protect your
face. I answered it.
>> constant 360 degree scans
>>
>>Seriously, your head spins around like an owl's?
>
>No. But I do rotate my head rouhly 20 degrees to each side
360 - 40 = 320. Where do you get the rest of it?
>
>> I don't get that statement at all. Are mirrors to be assumed?
>
>Mirrors can tell you if something is there.
>Mirrors CANNOT tell you that nothing is there.
I was asking if you are using mirrors to assist in filling your 360 degree
scan. So, would you mind very much actually answering the question?
>>"When it comes to safety, a
>>helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
>>being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway."
>>
>>A simple statement of fact. Good. Can that statement be backed up by
>>evidence? A funded study, perhaps? Insurance statistics? Love to see.
OK, no response. So you have nothing there. Good. I think I've seen
quite enough establishment of credibility from you. Good bye.
Paladin
<chamars...@spam.cableone.net> wrote:
>ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin)
>><chamars...@spam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>....
>>
>>>If I may address some of your points:
>>>
>>>"Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
>>>What am I protecting it from?"
>>>
>>>Probably the most compelling example I can give is of my old friend Ray,
>>>who highsided on a back road in the deserts of California.
>>
>>How? What did he do wrong? How does something that someone did on a
>>desert backroad have to do with riding in stop and go city traffic?
>>If I do not do what he did to cause the high side then the example is
>>meaningless.
>
>Your question was why you might need a full face helmet to protect your
>face. I answered it.
The question was (still quoted above) "Why do I need a full face
helmet to protect my face?" Not why I might need. Not to mention
that your example was not something that might happen to me as I do
not do whatever stupid thing Ray did.
>>> constant 360 degree scans
>>>
>>>Seriously, your head spins around like an owl's?
>>
>>No. But I do rotate my head rouhly 20 degrees to each side
>
>360 - 40 = 320. Where do you get the rest of it?
*SIGH* Constant does not mean my head is spinning around like a top
scanning in all directions every second. At each intersection I scan
the incoming for moving vehicles. Since many are blind until roughly
1.5 seconds prior to entering this means I need to look 45 - 50
degrees to the sides. I do not have binocular vision that wide of an
angle simply by moving my eyes so to be safe by my standards I need to
rotate my head. Occassionally I need to look beyond that, but not
often as to the side and side-rear is not a great danger.
>>> I don't get that statement at all. Are mirrors to be assumed?
>>
>>Mirrors can tell you if something is there.
>>Mirrors CANNOT tell you that nothing is there.
>
>I was asking if you are using mirrors to assist in filling your 360 degree
>scan. So, would you mind very much actually answering the question?
DUH. Since my head does not rotate to look behind me, yes, I use my
mirrors. A compulsive habit that occurs every 3 to 5 seconds unless
something interesting is happening elsewhere that requires full
attention.
>>>"When it comes to safety, a
>>>helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
>>>being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway."
>>>
>>>A simple statement of fact. Good. Can that statement be backed up by
>>>evidence? A funded study, perhaps? Insurance statistics? Love to see.
>
>OK, no response. So you have nothing there. Good. I think I've seen
>quite enough establishment of credibility from you. Good bye.
Ummmm.... I did respond. That you deleted and ignored the response
establishes your credibility.
tomo...@erols.com
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:56:17 -0600, "BryanUT" <nestl...@comcast.net>
> >Besides your point was that helmets only work in a narrow speed range. That
> >is bullshit. Helmets seem to work real well at speeds from near zero to
> >150+ mph. That is not a narrow range.
>
> Banging my head into a wall at 0 mph will result in no damage, with
> or without a helmet. Banging my head into a wall at 150 mph will
> result in death, with or without a helmet. Crash helmets are only
> effective in a fairly narrow range of impact speed -- below the helmet
> is not needed, above the helmet is overwhelmed.
Actually, helmets often work at impact speeds FAR ABOVE the narrow
range within which they are guaranteed to prevent brain injuries.
They may not ALWAYS prevent injury or death at higher speeds, but they
OFTEN do.
I would vastly prefer to have the possibility of brain injury being
eliminated or at least minimized than to dismiss the possibility
simply because there is no guarantee.
tomo...@erols.com
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 06:55:31 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Paladin" <ls650{modelna...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:464a420e...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>
> >>>>>>> Btw, if you ever watch MotoGP, WSB or AMA racing you will see how
> >>>>>>> effective
> >>>>>>> helmets are.
>
> >>>>>> Totally different situations.
>
> >>>>> No it isn't but you aren't educated enough to LEARN anything
> >>>>> valid, real or
> >>>>> useful.
>
> >>>> Oh? You ride the city streets as if they are your private race
> >>>> track?
>
> >>> Man you are dense. You can just as easily high side or low side
> >>> driving well within the law on the street as on a track.
>
> >> Bullshit. How often do people crash while racing compared with street
> >> driving? Average for the street is roughly one collision per 50,000
> >> miles of motorcycle travel -- and that average includes newbies,
> >> drunks, etc..
>
> >>> range. That is bullshit. Helmets seem to work real well at speeds
> >>> from near zero to 150+ mph. That is not a narrow range.
>
> >> Banging my head into a wall at 0 mph will result in no damage, with
> >> or without a helmet. Banging my head into a wall at 150 mph will
> >> result in death, with or without a helmet. Crash helmets are only
> >> effective in a fairly narrow range of impact speed -- below the helmet
> >> is not needed, above the helmet is overwhelmed.
>
> >likely cause of injury?
>
> >Road rash on the face ain't fun.
>
> >If you ride into a bridge abutment at 150 mph you're going to die. But
> >if you end up flying over a Cadillac and sliding down the road a piece
> >(a far more likely scenario) then your subsequent utility depends
> >greatly on what you are wearing.
>
> >>> I don't really care if you wear a helmet or not. It is your body.
> >>> Just say, "I choose to ride without a helmet." Don't try and
> >>> justify it by saying helmets don't work, they block out noise or the
> >>> impair vision.
>
> >> I never said any of those things.
>
> >No, your argument is that without them you can turn your head like Lind
> >Blair in the Exorcist.
>
> No. Not that either. Don't you look for people approaching on
> intersecting side streets who may run the stop? On many intersections
> you cannot see 60 feet down the intersecting street until you are
> within 60 feet of crossing the limit line. At 35 mph you have just a
> hair over a second to scan for moving vehicles, figure their path, and
> possibly take evasive action. How do you manage?
I manage the same way whether I'm wearing my full face helmet, my 3/4
helmet, or my 1/2 helmet. And on the very short street ride I took in
Florida earlier this spring sans helmet, I rode PERZACKLY the same way
I did whenever I normally ride, which is to say, with a helmet.
No difference, as long as I don't need protection against a head
injury.
tomo...@erols.com
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:59:48 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>
> <a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >Paladin wrote:
>
> >> "BryanUT" <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> I like my face. That is why I wear a full face helmet all the time.
>
> >> Jesus! How often do you crash?
>
> >How many faces do you have?
>
> Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
> helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
> experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
Huh. What a coincidence. Every single rider that I know who wears a
helmet ALSO prefers collision avoidance to collision. However, in the
case of an unavoidable collision, they - like me - prefer collision
survival. Hell, I've ridden hundreds of thousands of miles on the
public streets over the past 29 years without a single collision, and
I STILL comprehend that my record, diligence, skill, experience, and
mental riding strategy all serve merely to reduce the risk of a
collison, not ELIMINATE it.
tomo...@erols.com
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:49:07 -0600, "BryanUT" <nestl...@comcast.net>> >news:464a44a4...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>
> >> Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
> >> helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
> >> experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
>
> >help your face.
>
> Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
> What am I protecting it from?
>
> stop me from doing the constant 360 degree scans that have kept me
> helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
> being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway.
>
> >because I practice collision avoidance and other defensive driving
> >techniques.
>
> If you don't crash, why wear a heavy helmet that causes fatigue?
> helmet? After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
> I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
> (streets, driveways, etc..) So now, by LAW, I have to blindly trust
> other drivers to not run a stopsign/redlight.
I have been wearing a helmet for 29 years without it causing fatigue
or preventing me from scanning each and every incoming vehicle
pathway.
Perhaps you have a medical condition of which you are unaware that is
causing this weakness and subsequent laziness.
In any case, if the law requiring you to wear a helmet is preventing
you from riding as safely as you would otherwise, I suggest that you
see a doctor, give up riding, or ride without a helmet and stick to
your principles and argue your case in the inevitable courtroom
appearance.
Or you could buy a carbon fiber helmet which is light enough that your
concerns are addressed. (The BMW Sport Integral carbon fiber full face
helmet weighs 2.2 pounds.)
tomo...@erols.com
> Watching others I know that I am a far more observant driver than
> people in general. I also have far fewer collisions than people in
> general.
Me, too. In fact, wearing a helmet, I've had zero collisions.
Hundreds of riders without helmets were killed in motorcycle
collisions last year. I don't wish to be reduced to the level of
those riders.
tomo...@erols.com
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 06:40:01 GMT, "Mike Young"
>
Okay. So your contention is that, helmetless, approaching an
intersection at 35 mph, looking straight ahead, you can (and you NEED
to):
1. Turn your head 90 degrees left, focus, scan for oncoming hazards,
2. Turn your head 180 degrees right, focus, scan for oncoming hazards,
3. Turn your head 90 degrees left (back to center) and refocus,
all in under 1/2 second. And, your contention is, that you cannot
do this with a full face helmet or a 3/4 helmet or a DOT-approved 1/2
helmet, because all of them add too much weight to your head, and you
can no longer complete your scans in time.
Right? And you cite the laws of physics to support you, claiming
that no normal persona can do this while wearing a helmet, because of
the increased weight of the normal person's head when combined with
that of the helmet, correct? That anyone who *could* do this is an
abnormal superman, right?
Keith Schiffner
<tomo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1179501848.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Yep better tell those F-16 pilots (whose helmets weigh more) that they aren't
capable of looking around while pulling 3+ G's. Nope can't do it...physics say
so.
--
Keith Schiffner
Assistant to the Assistant Undersecretary of the Ministry of Silly Walks.
"terrorist organization" is a redundancy
tomo...@erols.com
> It wasn't my intention to start a helmet vs. no helmet battle, that's
> why I tried to disarm the argument by calling it "stupid" helmetless
> rides. I always wear my helmet when I expect to crash ;-). Anyway, I'm
> thinking of picking up a $2 watch (Navy) type cap at the local Army-
> type. Paladin, bless you and yours, but don't even try to argue, that
> train has left the station. Just do what you do and forget the
> argument. I'll do the same. Cheers and out....
The argument isn't helmet vs no helmet. It's not even - though some
people will frame it thus - whether riding helmetless is stupid or
not. Personally, despite almost 30 years of riding, five years of
racing, and 14 years of teaching MSF courses, I see nothing that
indicates to me that choosing not to wear a helmet when riding is
stupid. Statistically riskier than riding with a helmet? Sure. But
riding a motorcycle at all is statistically riskier than driving a
car, and driving a car is statistically riskier than riding in an
airplane or on a bus, and we all make our choices.
What I object to is the argument that wearing a helmet increases your
risk of an accident because the helmet makes it more difficult to scan
for hazards. I think it's an entirely specious argument.
finding z0
> "finding z0" <j...@excite.com> wrote in message
First off, big LOL !
Ahhhhh, women, infinite empathy, infinite compassion, finite
wit.......
PirateJohn
>
> First off, big LOL !
>
> Ahhhhh, women, infinite empathy, infinite compassion, finite
> wit.......
Or my first wife:
Couldn't spell empathy, finite compassion, and, so she thought,
infinite spending opportunities when using my credit cards ... ;)
Timberwoof
"tomo...@erols.com" <tomo...@erols.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 1:31 pm, finding z0 <j...@excite.com> wrote:
> > It wasn't my intention to start a helmet vs. no helmet battle, that's
> > why I tried to disarm the argument by calling it "stupid" helmetless
> > rides. I always wear my helmet when I expect to crash ;-). Anyway, I'm
> > thinking of picking up a $2 watch (Navy) type cap at the local Army-
> > Navy surplus store. That oughta stay on. I'm not the dew-rag bandanna
> > type. Paladin, bless you and yours, but don't even try to argue, that
> > train has left the station. Just do what you do and forget the
> > argument. I'll do the same. Cheers and out....
>
> The argument isn't helmet vs no helmet. It's not even - though some
> people will frame it thus - whether riding helmetless is stupid or
> not. Personally, despite almost 30 years of riding, five years of
> racing, and 14 years of teaching MSF courses, I see nothing that
> indicates to me that choosing not to wear a helmet when riding is
> stupid. Statistically riskier than riding with a helmet? Sure. But
> riding a motorcycle at all is statistically riskier than driving a
> car, and driving a car is statistically riskier than riding in an
> airplane or on a bus, and we all make our choices.
So in other words, since driving a car is somewhat more dangerous than
flying in an airplane, therefore it's okay to ride a motorcycle without
a helmet because it's only somewhat more dangerous than riding a
motorcycle without a helmet. (Okay, that was complicated to say in
English. Here it is in other symbols:
D(c) > D(a)
D(mc+h) > D(c)
D(mc-h) > D(mc+h)
--> Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is ok.
)
Right?
> What I object to is the argument that wearing a helmet increases your
> risk of an accident because the helmet makes it more difficult to scan
> for hazards. I think it's an entirely specious argument.
Now this I agree with entirely. :-)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
Bob Mann
<tomo...@erols.com> wrote:
You know....I dislike helmets as much as anyone but I would never
claim that they prevent me from being able to keep abreast of what is
happening around me.
I have a bad neck and shoulders but I can still manage.
The only problem I have is on an unfaired bike at highway speeds when
the wind catches under the helmet.
--
Bob Mann
Sex is like air; it's not important unless you
aren't getting any
tomo...@erols.com
wrote:
> So in other words, since driving a car is somewhat more dangerous than
> flying in an airplane, therefore it's okay to ride a motorcycle without
> a helmet because it's only somewhat more dangerous than riding a
> motorcycle without a helmet. (Okay, that was complicated to say in
> English. Here it is in other symbols:
>
> D(c) > D(a)
> D(mc+h) > D(c)
> D(mc-h) > D(mc+h)
I can't do lower math, let alone higher math. Let's just say that I
don't pass judgment on other people's choices of protective riding
gear.... any more... unless I forget, and do it anyway.
> --> Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is ok.
> Right?
It's okay by me. Of course, so it driving a car without a seatbelt
and skydiving. So wtf do I know?
Timberwoof
"tomo...@erols.com" <tomo...@erols.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 6:36 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@infernosoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So in other words, since driving a car is somewhat more dangerous than
> > flying in an airplane, therefore it's okay to ride a motorcycle without
> > a helmet because it's only somewhat more dangerous than riding a
> > motorcycle without a helmet. (Okay, that was complicated to say in
> > English. Here it is in other symbols:
> >
> > D(c) > D(a)
> > D(mc+h) > D(c)
> > D(mc-h) > D(mc+h)
>
> I can't do lower math, let alone higher math.
Oh, stop. I'll translate for you:
Riding in a car is more dangerous than riding in an airplane.
Riding on a motorcycle with a helmet is more dangerous than riding in a
car.
Riding on a motorcycle without a helmet is more dangerous than riding on
a motorcycle with a helmet.
> Let's just say that I
> don't pass judgment on other people's choices of protective riding
> gear.... any more... unless I forget, and do it anyway.
>
> > --> Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is ok.
> > Right?
>
> It's okay by me. Of course, so it driving a car without a seatbelt
> and skydiving. So wtf do I know?
Well, you say you can't do math and you seem to be skeert of symbols.
How much logical thinking can you do? How much should I trust your
judgement?
Mike Young
news:timberwoof.spam-A7...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
> motorcycle without a helmet. (Okay, that was complicated to say in
> English. Here it is in other symbols:
>
> D(c) > D(a)
>
> D(mc+h) > D(c)
>
> D(mc-h) > D(mc+h)
>
> --> Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is ok.
>
> )
>
> Right?
Hmmm. I think not. I think that only shows D(mc-h) >> D(a). You need the
rest of Tim's analysis to get to mc-h == OK. Special rule #10.
Mike Young
Thinking about this some more... Natural language makes for specious
arguments. Since we concluded only that D(mc+h) >> D(a), I'll sell the
helmet tomorrow and buy an airplane.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> .. therefore it's okay to ride a motorcycle without a helmet because
> it's only somewhat more dangerous than riding a motorcycle without a
> helmet.
Read that part again... <lol>
> (Okay, that was complicated to say in English.
..especially *that* English!
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
J. Clarke
Uh, riding without a helmet is OK as long as you understand the risk.
People should be allowed to decide for themselves what risks they will
undertake. We tend to get the government involved in everything though,
including in some states what kind of food we are allowed to eat.
>> What I object to is the argument that wearing a helmet increases your
>> risk of an accident because the helmet makes it more difficult to
>> scan for hazards. I think it's an entirely specious argument.
>
> Now this I agree with entirely. :-)
--
Paladin
<tomo...@erols.com> wrote:
>I would vastly prefer to have the possibility of brain injury being
>eliminated or at least minimized than to dismiss the possibility
>simply because there is no guarantee.
I vastly prefer to have the possibility of avoiding collisions than to
Paladin
<tomo...@erols.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 10:36 am, ls650{modelna...@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
....
>> No. Not that either. Don't you look for people approaching on
>> intersecting side streets who may run the stop? On many intersections
>> you cannot see 60 feet down the intersecting street until you are
>> within 60 feet of crossing the limit line. At 35 mph you have just a
>> hair over a second to scan for moving vehicles, figure their path, and
>> possibly take evasive action. How do you manage?
>
>I manage the same way whether I'm wearing my full face helmet, my 3/4
>helmet, or my 1/2 helmet. And on the very short street ride I took in
>Florida earlier this spring sans helmet, I rode PERZACKLY the same way
>I did whenever I normally ride, which is to say, with a helmet.
Yes, yes, you ride the same with or without a helmet. It is
physically impossible for me to ride the same with a helmet as without
-- we obviously ride differently. I'll concede that I am extremely
anal when it comes to my avoiding collisions, probably far more than
is reasonable. I asked IF and if so HOW you manage to scan upto 60
degrees each way in the last moments prior to entering an
intersection.
Paladin
<tomo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Me, too. In fact, wearing a helmet, I've had zero collisions.
>Hundreds of riders without helmets were killed in motorcycle
>collisions last year. I don't wish to be reduced to the level of
>those riders.
Hundreds of riders with helmets were killed in motorcycle
Robert Bolton
"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:464b1a27...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:09:57 -0700, Timberwoof
> <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <464a8db5...@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
>> ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:49:07 -0600, "BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Paladin" <ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:464a44a4...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>>> >>
>>> >> Just the one. But since BryanUT seems to think that he needs a FF
>>> >> helmet to protect his face I have to assume it is from personal
>>> >> experience. I prefer collision avoidance to collision survival.
>>> >
>>> >You do need a full face helmet to protect your face. A 3/4 helmet
>>> >won't
>>> >help your face.
>>>
>>> Why do I need a full face helmet to protect my face?
>>> What am I protecting it from?
>>
>
> I don't do that.
>
>>> Why would I want to strap over three pounds to my head which will
>>> stop me from doing the constant 360 degree scans that have kept me
>>> untouched on city streets for 40 years?
>>
>>you're talking about.
>
> It is a simply fact of physics that the inertial mass of the helmet
> will increase the force required to turn the head. It is physically
> impossible to turn your head as fast with a helmet as without.
>
>>> When it comes to safety, a
>>> helmet gives you survivability at the cost of an increased risk of
>>> being involved in a collision -- moreso on city streets than highway.
>>
>
> Let me change that from you (plural, people in general) to me.
> Watching others I know that I am a far more observant driver than
> people in general. I also have far fewer collisions than people in
>
>>> >You should never assume anything. I have yet to crash on the street,
>>> >because I practice collision avoidance and other defensive driving
>>> >techniques.
>>>
>>> If you don't crash, why wear a heavy helmet that causes fatigue?
>>
>>your face, keeps you dry, keeps you warm...
>
> You avoided the question. With just one exception FF helemts all
> weigh over three pounds. Even the lightest DOT beanie is over a pound
> and a half -- but the DOT beanie only protects from the law.
>
>>> Do you have some magical device that negates the inertial mass of a
>>> helmet? After a year or so of wearing a heavy helmet I noticed that
>>> I had stopped scanning each and every incoming vehicle pathway
>>> (streets, driveways, etc..) So now, by LAW, I have to blindly trust
>>> other drivers to not run a stopsign/redlight.
>>
>>additional needs. And a helmet isn't all that heavy...
>
> And you are superman, with massive neck muscles capable of snapping
> your head from center to 45 degrees left to 45 degrees right and back
> to center in a half second, repeated every five seconds as you ride
> through the city. I worship your mightyness. May I be allowed to
> ride a motorcycle also? Or should I get massive SUV and stop worrying
> about running into things or havin thing run into me.
You must ride some severely urban streets.
Robert
Paladin
>On May 17, 8:41 am, ls650{modelna...@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
>
>Okay. So your contention is that, helmetless, approaching an
>intersection at 35 mph, looking straight ahead, you can (and you NEED
>to):
>
>1. Turn your head 90 degrees left, focus, scan for oncoming hazards,
>2. Turn your head 180 degrees right, focus, scan for oncoming hazards,
>3. Turn your head 90 degrees left (back to center) and refocus,
No, not at all.
Timberwoof
ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
You seem to believe that they were killed *because* of they were wearing
helmets.
So how may riders without helmets were killed in motorcycle collisions
last year?
Timberwoof
ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
My eyes are spherical and they are in sockets; they're attached to my
head with blood vessels, nerves, and muscles. I can move them about and
'look' in different directions.
I can see just as well with my helmet on as off.
Timberwoof
ls650{modelname}@sbcglobal.net (Paladin) wrote:
Nice straw-man argument there. Nobody's dismissing the possibility of an
accident. What we're saying is that we're not so arrogant as to believe
that by wits along we can avoid all collisions. We rely on our wits to
save us from most of them, and then on our helmets for the unavoidable
ones. You choose to leave that last part to chance.
Timberwoof
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
Yes. And some of us believe that certain choices are irresponsible and
stupid, and are allowed to express those opinions and try to persuade
others to think the same way.
> We tend to get the government involved in everything though,
> including in some states what kind of food we are allowed to eat.
This is not about whether the government mandates helmets for riders.
This is about whether riders ought to wear helmets.