Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked off

[Andre Jute]

Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked
off:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motogp/15421404.stm

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Andre Jute:

>Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked
>off:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motogp/15421404.stm

I would be interested to know the exact injury. Seems possible
that the helmet could have been a player.

A close family member managed to decapitate himself by going down
in a curve at 100+. From the pictures, it was pretty obvious
that it was the inertia of the helmet that tore his head off.
--
PeteCresswell

[DougC]

He shouldn't have been wearing a bicycle helmet anyway.

[Andre Jute]

You have no manners, no taste and no judgement, Doug. You're
offensive. Go away.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 25, 4:27 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per Andre Jute:
>
> >Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked
> >off:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motogp/15421404.stm
>
> I would be interested to know the exact injury.  Seems possible
> that the helmet could have been a player.

Freak accident. Apparently Simoncelli's bike, once he lost control of
it, rather than head for the runoff, shot the wrong way across the
track into the path of two bikes behind him, Rossi and Edwards. They
weren't in close contention with him, but close enough to have nowhere
to go. They hit Simoncelli's bike and his helmet came off. Those who
saw the accident appear to be of the opinion that the damage was most
likely already done by the time Simoncelli went down without his
helmet. The other two riders, experienced senior men, were pretty
shaken though Rossi was unhurt and Edwards (relative to a fatality and
general motorbike racing mayhem) not too seriously hurt. -- AJ

[Clive George]

Neither do you, bringing up this subject on this NG.

[Andre Jute]

Rubbish. Cycle fatalities and the efficacy of helmets are the business
of this conference, and are constantly raised by everyone else,
hundreds of threads on the subject over the years. It is only when the
evidence tends to support the case for helmets that hypocrites like
you, Clive George, suddenly don't want to discuss the matter.

[Clive George]

Rubbish. But you're being boring now, so I shall stop responding.

[DougC]

There's a huge difference between the technical standards of motorcycle
helmets and bicycle helmets. (also between motorcycle/racing and bicycle
/speeds/, but anyway,,,)



Perhaps it should be asked: what comparison were you attempting exactly?

[Henk Fictorie]

Op 25-10-2011 2:05, Andre Jute schreef:

> Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked
> off:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motogp/15421404.stm

Apparently wearing a helmet doesn't prevent injuries. So, this is a case
in support of the anti-helmet riders.

Henk Fictorie

[Dan O]

On Oct 26, 7:35 am, Henk Fictorie <h...@henkfictorie.nl> wrote:
> Op 25-10-2011 2:05, Andre Jute schreef:> Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked
> > off:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motogp/15421404.stm
>
> Apparently wearing a helmet doesn't prevent injuries.

Did you mean to say that apparently wearing a helmet doesn't
*guarantee* there will be no injuries? Or are you really that obtuse.

> So, this is a case
> in support of the anti-helmet riders.
>

They don't need much, but some make much of it anyway.

[DirtRoadie]

Your bias is showing.

The linked article describes:
" ...but one of those bikes unfortunately hit the back of Simoncelli's
head, which took his helmet off.
...
The helmet is the most important piece of any protective clothing -
and if you lose that you're very vulnerable."

To summarize - the rider was not "wearing" a helmet when injuries
were sustained.

If you are so inclined, you can find and view video of the incident.

But I agree that helmet discussions have little reason for being in
RBT. There are other much more appropriate forums.

DR

[Henk Fictorie]

Op 26-10-2011 17:31, DirtRoadie schreef:

When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.

Henk Fictorie

[Duane Hebert]

On 10/26/2011 12:34 PM, davethedave wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:31:20 -0700, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
>>> Apparently wearing a helmet doesn't prevent injuries. So, this is a
>>> case in support of the anti-helmet riders.
>>
>> Your bias is showing.
>>
>> The linked article describes:
>> " ...but one of those bikes unfortunately hit the back of Simoncelli's
>> head, which took his helmet off.
>> ...
>> The helmet is the most important piece of any protective clothing - and
>> if you lose that you're very vulnerable."
>

> He was hit in the head by a motorcycle weighing in at 150kgs or so plus
> the weight of the rider. This combined mass was travelling at a good
> speed.
>
> The outcome of this unfortunate event was never going to be good helmet or
> no. Now can we please leave this sad occasion alone and spare a thought
> for his family who are mourning the loss of a son.


+1

[DirtRoadie]

Again, your bias is showing.
I'll leave it at that.

DR

[Henk Fictorie]

Op 26-10-2011 18:45, DirtRoadie schreef:

My bias is to always wearing a helmet on fast bikes
(roadbike/mountainbike), but not on a dutch city bike.
I just wanted to point out an illogical conclusion made by Andre.

Henk Fictorie

[DirtRoadie]

Where do you see anything "illogical?" For that matter, where do you
find a conclusion? We do not know if there would have been a different
(and better) outcome if the helmet had stayed on. We DO know it would
not have been worse.

"Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked off" is a true
statement by all accounts.

"..They hit Simoncelli's bike and his helmet came off" is a true
statement by all accounts.

DR

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Henk Fictorie:

>When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
>of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
>is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.

I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.

If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
it in the process of being ripped off.
--
PeteCresswell

[DirtRoadie]

With all due respect, you also appear to have a bias and maybe even an
agenda. Might I suggest that we refrain from what is, at best, mere
speculation and gracefully leave this thread.
We can leave the investigation to those who have that responsibility.
There is little to be discussed here and it is of marginal cycling
relevance in any case.
DR

[Frank Krygowski]

DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Oct 26, 11:21 am, "(PeteCresswell)"<x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>> Per Henk Fictorie:
>>
>>> When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
>>> of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
>>> is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.
>>
>> I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.
>>
>> If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
>> it in the process of being ripped off.
>
> With all due respect, you also appear to have a bias and maybe even an
> agenda.

And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle thread, not also display a
trolling agenda?

Does your failure to nag him or other helmeteers not show your own bias?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Henk Fictorie]

Op 26-10-2011 19:05, DirtRoadie schreef:

Quoting OP Andre Jute:
"Rubbish. Cycle fatalities and the efficacy of helmets are the business
of this conference, and are constantly raised by everyone else,
hundreds of threads on the subject over the years. It is only when the
evidence tends to support the case for helmets that hypocrites like
you, Clive George, suddenly don't want to discuss the matter."

Trying to prove that wearing a helmet saves lives/injuries by referring
to an accident (where it doesn't matter whether the person was or wasn't
wearing a helmet) is illogical.

A prove should show that an accident was prevented by wearing a helmet.

Henk Fictorie

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 26, 11:59 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

I explicitly said that I do not think this thread has much to offer.
That is largely because of the excessive bandwidth which you and your
kind have caused to be wasted here with your nonsensical rants.
If it were up to me, I would happily banish ANY helmet thread from
RBT.
Are you in?

DR

[Clive George]

If you were to say something other than "you and your kind", and accept
you're joining in too, I'd go for it.

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 26, 12:02 pm, Henk Fictorie <h...@henkfictorie.nl> wrote:

> Trying to prove that wearing a helmet saves lives/injuries by referring
> to an accident (where it doesn't matter whether the person was or wasn't
> wearing a helmet) is illogical.

You have now unilaterally concluded that the outcome of this accident
would not be different had the rider been wearing a helmet (i.e. and
had not lost his helmet.)
You are not in a position to know. Nor am I.

The originally cited article (also not conclusive) suggests that the
rider's loss of his helmet may have been a factor and there is nothing
unreasonable about that assessment.
But, bottom line, that something is inconclusive does not render it
illogical.

DR
But, perhaps you are confusing the concept of nonetheless, you deem
someone's elses it is not illogical

[DirtRoadie]

Substitute "AHZ's" if you wish. And as I said, I would love to see
helmet threads banished.

DR

[Clive George]

Nope. You need to include everybody, not just the people you disagree
with. Argument takes two sides, and both of them need to be quiet if you
want the threads to go away.

Your use of "AHZ" doesn't help your case either...

[Henk Fictorie]

Op 26-10-2011 20:45, DirtRoadie schreef:

That's just what Andre tried to do, prove something from an inconclusive
and tragic event.
And to put it mildly: that is illogical.

Henk Fictorie

[DirtRoadie]

It isn't, but if it were then you are admitting to being illogical.
If you feel a need to critique someone for their approach to
something, the least you could do is avoid using the same approach.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

I have little problem with someone who chooses not to wear a helmet. I
have a huge problem with someone in that category who insists that
anyone with a different perspective is wrong and who justifies their
position with fifth grade logic, argues that everyone else is wrong,
then berates and insults anyone who disagrees. A zealot. Look it up if
you need to. Frank and his kind.

DR

[Clive George]

And yet you claim you want to see helmet threads banished.

You're gleefully carrying on the argument, taking any opportunity to
rubbish the other side.

You are a hypocrite.

[DirtRoadie]

Guilty as charged. You?
DR

[Clive George]

Don't think so. Sorry.

[Henk Fictorie]

Op 26-10-2011 21:15, DirtRoadie schreef:

My original message was:

"Apparently wearing a helmet doesn't prevent injuries. So, this is a
case in support of the anti-helmet riders."

The first sentence is true. My girlfriend ended up in hospital after an
accident while wearing a helmet. Helmet cracked and my girlfriend with a
head concussion.
The second sentence merely notice that the first sentence is more in

support of the anti-helmet riders.

But you're right regarding my message. It was written to hastily after
reading Andre's message in which he tried to draw his own conclusions
from a fatal racing accident.

(messages are written from another computer, on my own computer I have
Andre in my message filter, I know now once again why he is there).

Henk Fictorie

[Dan O]

I have had my (helmeted) head run smack dab over by fast moving
motorcycles. I have taken a heavy steel footpeg mount - jutting from
a speeding motorcycle - to the jaw piece of my full coverage helmet.
These are just a couple of examples. I am satisfied that a good
helmet offers me invaluable protection. I have no need or desire for
proof that injuries were or ever will be prevented. I do not think
that I have arrived at this impression by faulty logic. YMMV.

> A prove should show that an accident was prevented by wearing a helmet.
>

Can you give a hypothetical example.

[Henk Fictorie]

Op 26-10-2011 21:59, Dan O schreef:

My last sentence above is obviously incorrect. It should read:
A prove should show that an incident was prevented by wearing a helmet.

Proving that hypotheses are true is always difficult, while proving that
hypotheses are false is easy. You just need one counterexample (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

I think that the helmet debate is not something you can prove. It is
more a question of risk assessment
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment). Should I wear a helmet
on my racingbike, dutch city bike or while lying in bed. In all
occasions there is a chance that I will have an accident involving my
head. But what is the probability and what is the damage. That should
weighted against the costs (financial, comfort etc.).

Henk Fictorie

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 26, 2:45 pm, Henk Fictorie <h...@henkfictorie.nl> wrote:


> My last sentence above is obviously incorrect. It should read:
> A prove should show that an incident was prevented by wearing a helmet.

How about "A *proof* should show that *injury_resulting_from* an
incident was *likely* prevented *or_diminished* by wearing a helmet."

And on top of that, how about we give it rest?
DR

[Andre Jute]

You're quoting me out of context, Fictorie. At this point I'm speaking
of Clive George's history of hysterical hypocrisy in support of even
the trashiest remark by an AHZ, as we just saw when he supported the
outrageous sneer of DougC at a dead boy.

See my original post. I drew no conclusion. I merely reported the
minimum fact that happened -- Simoncelli lost his helmet and died --
and gave a reference to an account by an eye-witness and,
coincidentally, an expert in bike racing at the highest level, Steve
Parrish.

You're way out of line, Fictorie.

Andre Jute
Sickened by these AHZ clowns

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 26, 8:58 pm, Henk Fictorie <h...@henkfictorie.nl> wrote:

> But you're right regarding my message. It was written to hastily after
> reading Andre's message in which he tried to draw his own conclusions
> from a fatal racing accident.
>
> (messages are written from another computer, on my own computer I have
> Andre in my message filter, I know now once again why he is there).
>
> Henk Fictorie

And now we know why you can't get anything right. You're a biased jerk
who shoots off idiocies from the hip without putting his mind in gear.
without bothering to ascertain the facts.

Once more. I reported the minimum facts in a neutral manner, zero
opinion, zero conclusion. Whatever you're arguing about is inside your
own head, motivated by your prejudice and your bias, Fictorie. Why
should anyone care shit what you think after this display of
stupidity?

Andre Jute
Where was this quarterwit educated? His parents should ask for his
tuition to be returned.

[Henk Fictorie]

Op 26-10-2011 23:12, Andre Jute schreef:

Hear, hear, exactly the reason why I put you in my killfile. Just
trolling around without trying to discuss.

Quoting you:
"Rubbish. Cycle fatalities and the efficacy of helmets are the business
of this conference, and are constantly raised by everyone else,
hundreds of threads on the subject over the years. It is only when the
evidence tends to support the case for helmets that hypocrites like
you, Clive George, suddenly don't want to discuss the matter."

Where you talk about evidence to support the case for helmets.

I'm just saying that you use a fatal accident which is inconclusive for
this case as evidence to support the case for helmets.


Henk Fictorie

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 26, 6:21 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
> I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.
>
> If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
> it in the process of being ripped off.
> --
> PeteCresswell

I would have thought that a knock from a motorbike and rider heavy
enough to dislodge a properly fitted and strapped helmet would by
itself, regardless of the fall afterwards, cause substantial
concussive and compressive brain trauma, and very likely damage to the
vertebrae too.

Frankly, in this case, I'd take the relevantly experienced opinion of
Steve Parrish and our own Dan O before that of anyone else.

My own opinion, since everyone assumes I have one, is that no helmet
in the world that you can still walk in would have saved Simoncelli
from serious injury; that the best the helmet can do in a freak
accident of this nature is reduce the seriousness of the injuries.

I'm sorry I started this thread. I was hoping to learn something, but
the useful information is being overwhelmed by the usual scum behaving
like scum.

Andre Jute
Disappointed

[Frank Krygowski]

Dan O wrote:
>
>
> I have had my (helmeted) head run smack dab over by fast moving
> motorcycles. I have taken a heavy steel footpeg mount - jutting from
> a speeding motorcycle - to the jaw piece of my full coverage helmet.
> These are just a couple of examples. I am satisfied that a good
> helmet offers me invaluable protection. I have no need or desire for
> proof that injuries were or ever will be prevented. I do not think
> that I have arrived at this impression by faulty logic. YMMV.

That would be a fairly good post - if only this were a motorcycle
discussion group!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 26, 6:59 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle thread, not also display a
> trolling agenda?

See, anyone who doesn't agree with Frank Krygowski is a TROLL. Frank
is the perfect fascist. He always assumes that there is only one right
opinion, it is the Krygowski opinion, and not one else has a right to
an opinion, and therefore anything they say is TROLLING.

And then this enemy of liberty and free speech, Krygowski, has the
cheek to pretend to speak for cyclists.

Yo, Franki-boy, "TROLL" is what the little juvenile losers say when
they can't keep up their end in open debate.

[Andre Jute]

Fictorie, you've now been repeatedly told that you took that quotation
out of context, that it doesn't mean what you think it means,
including by the person who wrote it, yet you've written a dozen or
more messages based on your misunderstanding of it. At this point we
can only conclude that you aren't only stupid, you're malicious as
well.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 26, 10:43 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Tell us, Franki-boy, what makes a dullard like you think he should try
to patronize a contributor like Dan? Do you know how dumb and spiteful
it makes you look?

[Kerry Montgomery]

For example:

Andre Jute View profile
Hide options Jun 17, 11:13 am

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech, rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc
From: Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 17 2011 11:13 am
Subject: Re: Where is the point?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message |
Find messages by this author
On Jun 17, 11:04 am, Tºm Shermªn °_° <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI



- Show quoted text -

The word you're reaching for, Liddell Tommi, is "tautology", or
"tautological". I do it on purpose to troll the more pompous arseholes
on the board. When I do it, it is tomorrow's everyday (heh-heh)
vernacular, when you and Mikey do it, it is illiterate.

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 26, 3:43 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Frank, there is a concept often invoked in informed discussion call an
"analogy." It requires some dexterity of thought and comparison of
experiences that are not literally the same. It is a shame that you
are unable to embrace it, but it does require understanding beyond
your typical fifth grade level black-and-white perspective.

DR

[Andre Jute]

> begin 666 dot_clear.gif
> K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
> `
> end

Er, Kerry-baby, what's the point of your quotation from the archives?
The word "troll" is used in it to describe a linguistic lure dragged
in front of some pedants so I can step on their tails.

The word "troll" as used by that poor quarterwit Krygowski is an
admission that he realizes he is inadequate to debate the matter with
me, and an attempt at emotional blackmail of the sort: "If you say
what I don't like, my little feelings will be hurt."

If you don't mind me saying so, dear Kerry, your confusion of a
literary device with the bullyboy tactics of the anti-helmet zealots
makes you seem as quite as thickly insensitive to meaning and context
as the current RBT Star Dumbo, Henk Fictorie, who at least has the
excuse that English is not his mother tongue.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that you should stand up for Krygowski's
unconstitutional attempts to stifle free speech on RBT. I thought you
were better than that.

[John B.]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:21:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Per Henk Fictorie:

>>When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
>>of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
>>is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.
>

>I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.
>
>If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
>it in the process of being ripped off.

See http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html


--
John B.

[DirtRoadie]

It is just one study, by an _economist_ no less, but it is reassuring
to see that motorcycle helmets are beneficial.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

That's funny!
DR

[MikeWhy]

"davethedave" <davedfo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iepln8-...@simurg.ath.cx...

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:31:20 -0700, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
>>> Apparently wearing a helmet doesn't prevent injuries. So, this is a
>>> case in support of the anti-helmet riders.
>>
>> Your bias is showing.
>>
>> The linked article describes:
>> " ...but one of those bikes unfortunately hit the back of Simoncelli's
>> head, which took his helmet off.
>> ...
>> The helmet is the most important piece of any protective clothing - and
>> if you lose that you're very vulnerable."
>

> He was hit in the head by a motorcycle weighing in at 150kgs or so plus
> the weight of the rider. This combined mass was travelling at a good
> speed.

Yup. And depending on your chosen frame of reference, that speed approached
that of light itself, which clearly is almost certainly fatal, given the v
squared relationship to energy.

What a crock of shite.

[Kerry Montgomery]

Andre Jute,
Frank Krygowski's quote,"And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle
thread, not also
display a trolling agenda?" Would seem to refer to the behavior you state
that you indulge in by your quote,"I do it on purpose to troll the more
pompous arseholes on the board." Your earlier quote sounds as if you agree
with Frank Krygowski's statement, so your current response disagreeing with
his statement surprised me.
Kerry

[Andre Jute]

Good heavens, you really have as little grasp is the thicko Fictorie
of what the words mean. In one case I was talking about *tautologies*,
clever use of words. Now, taking my words further out of context each
time you mangle the quotation the more closely to follow your
swingeing accusations, you're accusing me of using the death of a
young man merely to tease a few idiots on RBT. That makes you as
despicable as it makes the behavior of the resident scum, including
Krygowski, in this thread.

Let us be quite clear. if they had any taste or decency, that scum
should have stayed out of this discussion. They're the ones making it
nasty with tasteless remarks. You're the one aiding and abetting them
by trying to smear me with their brush. That's despicable, Montgomery,
and you know it. (And didn't you complain about a far lower level of
tastelessness and indecency in the gloating about Jobst's accident? If
so, you're a hypocrite as well.)

I will furthermore say that accusations of being a troll are leveled
only by anti-constitutional netbullies like Krygowski trying to stop
discussion of subjects on which they know they don't have a foot to
stand on. The subtext of the troll accusation is that there is
agreement about some subject and that the anti-social elements hurling
the accusation are the keepers of that agreement. It is a form of
emotional blackmail, a claim that their little feelings will be hurt
when anyone brings facts that contradict their prejudices. They then
use this slimy non-reason to justify their anti-social behaviour,
because their little feeling were offended by the truth.

That's not only juvenile, that's beneath contempt.

[Andre Jute]

I wouldn't be in such a hurry to dismiss a study by economists, Dirt.
Many economists and psychologists today are more elegant statisticians
than the merely mathematical technicians, not to mention engineering
idiots like Krygowski who consider statistics an adjunct to his
wishful thinking.

The interesting thing about the Goldberg study is that it relates
fatalities, head injuries and neck injuries as -- not the same
interchangeable data. It also sorts out the bugbear of alcohol use
definitively, and calculates a margin speed up to which the helmet is
almost entirely beneficial.

There is only one bicycle study I know which can be used to calculate
separately for fatalities and serious injuries, the one in New York
(which the anti-helmet zealots won't even discuss because it totally
undermines their prejudice with utterly unassailable numbers), so this
Goldberg study is a fascinating confirmation.

However, Goldberg has very little to do modern racing conditions and
helmets.

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 26, 8:45 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2:25 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 7:09 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:21:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >Per Henk Fictorie:
> > > >>When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
> > > >>of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
> > > >>is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.
>
> > > >I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.
>
> > > >If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
> > > >it in the process of being ripped off.
>
> > > Seehttp://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html
>
> > It is just one study, by an _economist_ no less, but it is reassuring
> > to see that motorcycle helmets are beneficial.
> > DR
>
> I wouldn't be in such a hurry to dismiss a study by economists, Dirt.
> Many economists and psychologists today are more elegant statisticians
> than the merely mathematical technicians, not to mention engineering
> idiots like Krygowski who consider statistics an adjunct to his
> wishful thinking.

There is obviously no way of knowing (either way) the accuracy of a
particular statistical study. But if the statistics involve injury I
would be a little more receptive to a statistical review done by
someone with good combination of medical knowledge AND analytical
skills.
Analogously, I do recall Krygowski spouting off here about what could
be shown statistically (in his mind) using the average speeds from
Milan San Remo over the years. Utterly laughable, anyone with a
smidgeon of knowledge about such events could quickly understand that
he was engaged in classic GIGO. An unsupportable underlying assumption
leads only to erroneous conclusions. But Frank is, sadly, not very
bright. Worse yet, he doesn't know that he's not very bright and is
not very teachable.

> The interesting thing about the Goldberg study is that it relates
> fatalities, head injuries and neck injuries as -- not the same
> interchangeable data.

That actually jumps out rather emphatically. Helmets = No change in
fatalities, but clear benefit in preventing head injuries. Sumptin'
ain't right - there are no fatalities involving head injuries? Or ALL
head injuries which would have been fatal instantly become neck injury
fatalities when wearing a helmet?

> It also sorts out the bugbear of alcohol use
> definitively, and calculates a margin speed up to which the helmet is
> almost entirely beneficial.

Yes, as in benefit with no downside. What's not to like?

> There is only one bicycle study I know which can be used to calculate
> separately for fatalities and serious injuries, the one in New York
> (which the anti-helmet zealots won't even discuss because it totally
> undermines their prejudice with utterly unassailable numbers), so this
> Goldberg study is a fascinating confirmation.
>
> However, Goldberg has very little to do modern racing conditions and
> helmets.

It's A study, one study - nothing to get worked up over one way or the
other.

I was serious when I said that I don't think helmet discussions belong
in RBT. But even Frank himself does not seem willing to concede that.
Apparently he's on a mission from GOD.
My apologies to those who suggested this thread be dropped. I agree.

DR

[Clive George]

My, you write a lot.

[Kerry Montgomery]

Andre Jute,
Yes, you were talking about tautologies, and about using them to troll. That
seems consistent with Frank Krygowski's question.
No, I'm not accusing you of "using the death of a young man to tease a few
idiots on RBT.", just commenting on trolling, so I'm not a hypocrite.
Kerry

[Frank Krygowski]

On Oct 26, 11:30 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> There is obviously no way of knowing (either way) the accuracy of a
> particular statistical study.  

Well, I'll admit that there is no way for _some_ people to know the
accuracy of a particular statistical study. It depends quite a lot on
the intelligence and background of the person.

Two of my frequent correspondents on helmet effectiveness are PhDs in
statistics. Both are helmet skeptics. One obtained the original data
set from the most (in)famous pro-helmet study, and used the data to
demonstrate both basic errors in computation and serious problems
caused by self-selection of subjects. The former mistake cause the
most common quotations of that study's results to be numerically
wrong, and the latter show the entire computation of helmet benefit to
be worthless.

Now we could, theoretically, discuss those facts in detail. They'd be
far more pertinent than the anonymous "DirtRoadie's" refrence to Milan-
San Remo data - a reference which just resurrects another argument he
lost.

I say we could, theoretically, discuss those facts. But there's
little reason to try reasonable discussion with people who are
willfully abusive.

- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 26, 10:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I say we could, theoretically, discuss those facts.  But there's
> little reason to try reasonable discussion with people who are
> willfully abusive.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Or those who are willfully ignorant.
Tell us again about Milan San Remo.
Your selective memory continues to deteriorate.

DR

[John B.]

As it was very much a nose counting exercise it might be that an
economist might be just the bloke to undertake it.. And I saw no
tendency to prove a point or show one side in a better light then the
other.


--
John B.

[Henk Fictorie]

Op 27-10-2011 0:04, Andre Jute schreef:

Ok, I will do the copy/paste for you. Here is your context.

On Oct 26, 3:11 am, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> On 26/10/2011 01:26, Andre Jute wrote:
>
>> On Oct 25, 6:10 pm, DougC<dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:

>>> On 10/24/2011 7:05 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked
>>>> off:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motogp/15421404.stm

>>> He shouldn't have been wearing a bicycle helmet anyway.
>> You have no manners, no taste and no judgement, Doug. You're
>> offensive. Go away.
> Neither do you, bringing up this subject on this NG.

The context is quite normal, apart from some insulting by you.
Just pointing out that you made an off topic post by Doug and Clive. No
reference to the 'case for helmets'. You were the first to claim 'the
evidence tends to support the case for helmets'.

Basically:
- You post off topic
- Respond with insults after being corrected
- Draw conclusions based upon an inconclusive fatal accident
- Don't want to discuss

Henk Fictorie

[Dan O]

On Oct 26, 9:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 11:30 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is obviously no way of knowing (either way) the accuracy of a
> > particular statistical study.  
>
> Well, I'll admit that there is no way for _some_ people to know the
> accuracy of a particular statistical study.  It depends quite a lot on
> the intelligence and background of the person.
>
> Two of my frequent correspondents on helmet effectiveness are PhDs in
> statistics.  Both are helmet skeptics.

I am a helmet pragmatist. I am skeptical of everything that isn't
supported by evidence. Evidence is where I find it. If I am not, by
your definition, a "helmet skeptic", does that make me a "helmeteer"
instead? Who is the polarized one here?

> One obtained the original data
> set from the most (in)famous pro-helmet study, and used the data to
> demonstrate both basic errors in computation and serious problems
> caused by self-selection of subjects.  The former mistake cause the
> most common quotations of that study's results to be numerically
> wrong, and the latter show the entire computation of helmet benefit to
> be worthless.
>

Blah, blah, blah.

> Now we could, theoretically, discuss those facts in detail.  They'd be
> far more pertinent than the anonymous "DirtRoadie's" refrence to Milan-
> San Remo data - a reference which just resurrects another argument he
> lost.
>

So who got the trophy in that one? Can we see it (the trophy)?

> I say we could, theoretically, discuss those facts.  But there's
> little reason to try reasonable discussion with people who are
> willfully abusive.
>

So what do you propose to do about them?

[Dan O]

On Oct 26, 1:45 pm, Henk Fictorie <h...@henkfictorie.nl> wrote:
> Op 26-10-2011 21:59, Dan O schreef:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 11:02 am, Henk Fictorie<h...@henkfictorie.nl>  wrote:
> >> Op 26-10-2011 19:05, DirtRoadie schreef:
>
> >>> On Oct 26, 10:52 am, Henk Fictorie<h...@henkfictorie.nl>    wrote:
> >>>> Op 26-10-2011 18:45, DirtRoadie schreef:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 26, 10:37 am, Henk Fictorie<h...@henkfictorie.nl>      wrote:
> >>>>>> Op 26-10-2011 17:31, DirtRoadie schreef:
>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 26, 8:35 am, Henk Fictorie<h...@henkfictorie.nl>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Op 25-10-2011 2:05, Andre Jute schreef:>        Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked
> >>>>>>>>> off:
> >>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motogp/15421404.stm
>

> >>>>>>>> Apparently wearing a helmet doesn't prevent injuries. So, this is a case
> >>>>>>>> in support of the anti-helmet riders.
>
> >>>>>>> Your bias is showing.
>
> >>>>>>> The linked article describes:
> >>>>>>> " ...but one of those bikes unfortunately hit the back of Simoncelli's
> >>>>>>> head, which took his helmet off.
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> The helmet is the most important piece of any protective clothing -
> >>>>>>> and if you lose that you're very vulnerable."
>

> >>>>>>> To summarize  - the rider was not "wearing" a helmet when injuries
> >>>>>>> were sustained.
>
> >>>>>>> If you are so inclined, you can find and view video of the incident.
>
> >>>>>>> But I agree that helmet discussions have little reason for being in
> >>>>>>> RBT. There are other much more appropriate forums.
>
> >>>>>>> DR

>
> >>>>>> When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
> >>>>>> of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
> >>>>>> is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.
>

> >>>>> Again, your bias is showing.
> >>>>> I'll leave it at that.
>
> >>>>> DR
>
> >>>> My bias is to always wearing a helmet on fast bikes
> >>>> (roadbike/mountainbike), but not on a dutch city bike.
> >>>> I just wanted to point out an illogical conclusion made by Andre.
>
> >>> Where do you see anything "illogical?"  For that matter, where do you
> >>> find a conclusion? We do not know if there would have been a different
> >>> (and better) outcome if the helmet had stayed on. We DO know it would
> >>> not have been worse.
>
> >>> "Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked off" is a true
> >>> statement by all accounts.
>
> >>> "..They hit Simoncelli's bike and his helmet came off" is a true
> >>> statement by all accounts.
>
> >>> DR

>
> >> Quoting OP Andre Jute:
> >> "Rubbish. Cycle fatalities and the efficacy of helmets are the business
> >> of this conference, and are constantly raised by everyone else,
> >> hundreds of threads on the subject over the years. It is only when the
> >> evidence tends to support the case for helmets that hypocrites like
> >> you, Clive George, suddenly don't want to discuss the matter."
>

> >> Trying to prove that wearing a helmet saves lives/injuries by referring
> >> to an accident (where it doesn't matter whether the person was or wasn't
> >> wearing a helmet) is illogical.

>
> > I have had my (helmeted) head run smack dab over by fast moving
> > motorcycles.  I have taken a heavy steel footpeg mount - jutting from
> > a speeding motorcycle - to the jaw piece of my full coverage helmet.
> > These are just a couple of examples.  I am satisfied that a good
> > helmet offers me invaluable protection.  I have no need or desire for
> > proof that injuries were or ever will be prevented.  I do not think
> > that I have arrived at this impression by faulty logic.  YMMV.
>

> >> A prove should show that an accident was prevented by wearing a helmet.
>
> > Can you give a hypothetical example.
>
> My last sentence above is obviously incorrect. It should read:
> A prove should show that an incident was prevented by wearing a helmet.
>

Yeah, but I don't see how to prove this - short of smashing some human
heads in controlled tests.

> Proving that hypotheses are true is always difficult, while proving that
> hypotheses are false is easy. You just need one counterexample (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).
>
> I think that the helmet debate is not something you can prove. It is
> more a question of risk assessment
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment). Should I wear a helmet
> on my racingbike, dutch city bike or while lying in bed. In all
> occasions there is a chance that I will have an accident involving my
> head. But what is the probability and what is the damage. That should
> weighted against the costs (financial, comfort etc.).
>

Agreed - absolutely. Now you're right on my wavelength.

What I originally took issue with was the blatant logical flaw in
assuming that helmets do not prevent injuries just because injuries
sometimes occur even when a helmet is used.

Certain people would try to have us believe, though, that
our individual risk is based on statistics of other people. This is
fine if you're an actuary trying to balance a risk pool; but if the
issue is your own personal safety, while statistics may inform of some
typical, generic risks, they are not really applicable to any
individual.

My anecdotes don't "prove" anything, but were offered, FWIW, in
response to the idea that a helmet makes no difference when getting
hit in the head by a speeding motorcycle. Certain people would have
us believe that bicycle helmets make no difference, either.

[Frank Krygowski]

Dan O wrote:
> On Oct 26, 9:36 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Two of my frequent correspondents on helmet effectiveness are PhDs in
>> statistics. Both are helmet skeptics.
>
> I am a helmet pragmatist. I am skeptical of everything that isn't
> supported by evidence. Evidence is where I find it.

Hmm. Where you find it would depend heavily on where you look. So
where have you looked, Dan? How many pro- and con- helmet studies have
you read? What have been their strong points and weak points? What
data have you examined? Do you have any specifics?

Or are you just discounting anything that didn't happen to you
personally? It's really not clear, from what you wrote.

> If I am not, by
> your definition, a "helmet skeptic", does that make me a "helmeteer"
> instead?

Those categories are not all encompassing. You may be neither. State
your opinion clearly, explaining your logic, and people will know more
about how to categorize your views.

> Blah, blah, blah.

Brilliant.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Dan O wrote:
> Certain people would have
> us believe that bicycle helmets make no difference, either.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html

What _do_ you say about the data in that table, Dan? I don't remember
that you've commented on it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

Yes, and you worthless little anti-helmet zealots have no answer to
any of it, which is why you resort to this sort of childish ankle-
nipping.

[Andre Jute]

Kerry, it is impossible to hold a conversation with someone who
doesn't understand the English language when I use it plainly. I
wasn't "talking about tautologies", I was using tautologies.

A courageous and talented young man is dead, and you and Frank
Krygowski can think of nothing more worthwhile to say than to try and
cause a controversy by accusing me of trolling be even discussing it.
The pair of you are despicable. Goodbye.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 27, 5:36 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I say we could, theoretically, discuss those facts.  But there's
> little reason to try reasonable discussion with people who are
> willfully abusive.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Your perverted sense of entitlement never ceases to astound me,
Krygowski.

A: You storm into a thread about a dead young man and your first
"contribution" is to call someone a "troll".

B. Then you whine that "there's little reason to try reasonable
discussion with people who are willfully abusive" when you're the one
that's "wilfully abusive".

Andre Jute
Seeing the problem clearly. The problem is called Frank Krygowski.

[Dan O]

On Oct 26, 2:43 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> Dan O wrote:
>
> > I have had my (helmeted) head run smack dab over by fast moving
> > motorcycles.  I have taken a heavy steel footpeg mount - jutting from
> > a speeding motorcycle - to the jaw piece of my full coverage helmet.
> > These are just a couple of examples.  I am satisfied that a good
> > helmet offers me invaluable protection.  I have no need or desire for
> > proof that injuries were or ever will be prevented.  I do not think
> > that I have arrived at this impression by faulty logic.  YMMV.
>

> That would be a fairly good post - if only this were a motorcycle
> discussion group!
>

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/7eb5c009e33ec9b0?hl=en

[Dan O]

On Oct 27, 9:57 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/61a6f1f1fb9c5b0d?hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c1a89e7d7ab571b7?hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/f30e7dcfacdf9fd3?hl=en

... and, for the origin of the "garlic" reference...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/f38033d0c2ba9a5d?hl=en

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 26, 10:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 11:30 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is obviously no way of knowing (either way) the accuracy of a
> > particular statistical study.  
>
> Well, I'll admit that there is no way for _some_ people to know the
> accuracy of a particular statistical study.  It depends quite a lot on
> the intelligence and background of the person.
>
> Two of my frequent correspondents on helmet effectiveness are PhDs in
> statistics.  Both are helmet skeptics. One obtained the original data
> set from the most (in)famous pro-helmet study, and used the data to
> demonstrate both basic errors in computation and serious problems
> caused by self-selection of subjects.  The former mistake cause the
> most common quotations of that study's results to be numerically
> wrong, and the latter show the entire computation of helmet benefit to
> be worthless.
>
> Now we could, theoretically, discuss those facts in detail.  They'd be
> far more pertinent than the anonymous "DirtRoadie's" refrence to Milan-
> San Remo data - a reference which just resurrects another argument he
> lost.

If you are going to drop names, then drop names and/or have them enter
the discussion. Otherwise, leave your imaginary friends out of the
discussion.
/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/
or
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/anon.htm

We really wouldn't care whether YOU think that God and the Pope agree
with you. That's your fifth grade perspective showing again. Your
established track record for accuracy in quoting anything is abysmal.
Remember the published test of steel frames where you claimed that
"all the testers could not tell the frames apart?" And we established
that the LONE tester had expressed a preference. No Frank, you
cannot be trusted to accurately convey information.

How about the recent exchange where you claimed that a bike without a
downtube would be unridable? Despite being provided real world
examples of commercial bikes with favorable reviews, you entrenched
yourself in your ignorant denial.

And Milan San Remo - For those who missed it, Frank asserted that the
relative constancy of MSR average speeds over a substantial period of
years PROVES that racing bicycles have not improved in that same
period. Frank fails to understand that a long bicycle road race is won
by crossing the finish line ahead of other competitors, not by
achieving some arbitrary average speed from start to finish. And this
was not merely an argument between Frank and myself. At least half a
dozen knowledgeable posters here courteously tried to educate Frank
with a variety of valid and accurate explanations of why _average_
speed in a road race such as MSR does not mean squat.

Hey Frank do your imaginary phd buddies ride bikes? Do they follow
racing at all? Do they know the difference between a road race and a
time trial? Do they understand how bike racing differs from running?
Do they recognize how a statistical analysis based upon faulty
assumptions (such as your MSR theory) is meaningless? GIGO at its
finest! Fleischman and Pons!

> I say we could, theoretically, discuss those facts.  But there's
> little reason to try reasonable discussion with people who are
> willfully abusive.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank, you are not looking for discussion - you are looking for a
support group. A bunch of folks who share your ignorance and/or denial
and who will shout "Amen Brother! Hallelujah!" no matter what you
say.

DR

[DirtRoadie]

+1
Frank has no grasp of what "discussion" means.
But he has the skill of "prevarication" mastered.
DR

[Duane Hebert]

On 10/27/2011 2:17 PM, davethedave wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:43:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Dan O wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have had my (helmeted) head run smack dab over by fast moving
>>> motorcycles. I have taken a heavy steel footpeg mount - jutting from a
>>> speeding motorcycle - to the jaw piece of my full coverage helmet.
>>> These are just a couple of examples. I am satisfied that a good helmet
>>> offers me invaluable protection. I have no need or desire for proof
>>> that injuries were or ever will be prevented. I do not think that I
>>> have arrived at this impression by faulty logic. YMMV.
>>
>> That would be a fairly good post - if only this were a motorcycle
>> discussion group!
>

> Well if you are comparing motorcycle helmets to bicycle helmets we
> might as well compare caviar with a three toed sloth.
>
> Both items have completely different design parameters and limitations.
> One lives in trees and shits a third of its bodyweight every time it
> takes a dump. The other can be found gracing the plates of the rich.

But which is which?

[James]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> far more pertinent than the anonymous "DirtRoadie's" refrence to Milan-
> San Remo data - a reference which just resurrects another argument he
> lost.

Um, who was the judge and jury? I never heard a verdict.

> I say we could, theoretically, discuss those facts. But there's
> little reason to try reasonable discussion with people who are
> willfully abusive.

What about people who willfully quote out of context? People who
grossly inflate what others have said, and also paraphrase with gross
inflations what others didn't say? People who regularly build straw men
so they can tear it to shreds, and in the meantime patronize, denigrate
and deride people they disagree with? Those people are perhaps worse
than those who are willfully abusive. At least the willfully abusive
ones don't try to hide their style of abuse!

Yes, there is little reason to try to reasonable discussion with folks
like that around.

--
JS.

[Andre Jute]

I do think Franki Shavelegs, as a wannabe politician, will improve his
chances of being elected nightsoil remover of Dung Hill, AZ, if he
were to grow a little brush mustache just the width of his nose...

Mind you, considering the brainpower of his constituency -- Fictorie
and George and Cimper and Montgomery aren't exactly in danger of
setting Mensa alight -- a limp hand at shoulder height, palm forward,
might be necessary as well as a few semi-hearty "Sieg Heil"s.

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 27, 1:05 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
Frank-

If you are going to drop names, then drop names and/or have them
enter the discussion. Otherwise, leave your imaginary friends out of
the discussion.

[corrected link]
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

> [snip bad link ]
> orhttp://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/anon.htm

It is worth repeating:

[Andre Jute]

Fictorie, you're a moron, and the evidence is in every single post you
sent to this thread.

> Basically:
> - You post off topic

Rubbish. Count the number of similar thread by the hypocrites who now
accuse me of being off-topic. Count the number of messages by the same
hypocrites in this thread. Count your own posts in this thread. How
can that many people, that many posts, be off-topic.? Not that you
will understand, but an accusation isn't guilt, and an accusation by
scum like DougC and Clive George, with those people's track record for
lies and political distortions, is laughable. I flick it off my thumb
the same way I flick you off, like a piece of snot.

> - Respond with insults after being corrected

Snotnosed kids like you don't correct me. You don't even have enough
rationality to get the meaning of what I say straight, nor the
sequence of what I say, nor how my facts are connected. You can't help
yourself across street, you poor dumbo. Your parents failed you when
they left you with an impression that you're the equal of your
betters.

> - Draw conclusions based upon an inconclusive fatal accident

I drew no conclusion whatsoever. You have been repeatedly told so. You
continue to make this dumb claim. The subtext is that a dumb cluck
like you knows better what I intend to say than I do; I've only made a
seven-figure living from the English language for half a century but
some crude clown called Henk Fictorie claims to know better what I
mean than I do. It's patently ludicrous. By the way, your so-called
"evidence" for your claim, my remark to Clive George that you keep
pulling out of context, was made after you made your claim, and thus
cannot be adduced as proof for it. That's beside the fact that it
draws no conclusion about the present case either, but refers to
George's routine, constant AHZ hypocrisy.

> - Don't want to discuss

Can't you AHZ clowns have a caucus and get your story straight, or at
least agree on the same crooked story? Clive George just accused me of
talking too much. So which of you clowns am I to believe this hour,
and will your story change on the hour or the half hour? That's beside
the fact that there is nothing to discuss with a moron like you who
claims he knows better what I think than I do. If you want to discuss
anything with me, Fictorie, you must first learn enough English to
talk to the intellectual classes, not just the cruder engineers. You
don't make the rules of the debate when you speak to someone like me,
you ask what they are.

> Henk Fictorie

You're not too bright, are you, Henk? If you had any brains,
considering our past track record, you would have nipped me in the
ankle and run away. Now everyone laughs at you, because you look like
a whipped cur coming back for more because he is too dumb to run.

Unsigned out of contempt for your parents and teachers who really
should have done better by you.

[Clive George]

You like the sight of your own writing rather more than your statements
"Unsigned" and "flick if off my thumb" imply.

[Andre Jute]

Oh, I wouldn't want to deny any riches to a young man who has as much
to learn as Henk.

Once more, Clive, your dart'n'dash nip at my ankles convinces me you
have no answers to the points I raise. If you have facts you should
offer them. Your opinion by itself is worthless.

[JG]

Well, it's obviously inane to argue either yea or nay on the basis of
a single accident.

I assume the motive for "Jute"'s initial posting was the same as
always - an opportunity for him to enjoy the sound of his own
indignation.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per DirtRoadie:

>> I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.
>>
>> If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
>> it in the process of being ripped off.
>

>With all due respect, you also appear to have a bias and maybe even an
>agenda. Might I suggest that we refrain from what is, at best, mere
>speculation and gracefully leave this thread.

Why do you say that?

If I have a bias, it's towards wearing a bike helmet. It's not
a religious issue with me, but I do wear one at least 95% of the
time. I think I've heard rational arguments by reasonable
people to the contrary - but I choose the helmet side for now.

But I've had a close family member get his head literally torn
off by a motorcycle helmet. His leathers were unblemished. His
helmet was still on, his glasses were even in place. It's just
that his body was in one place - with all of the cervical
vertebrae protruding, but his head (inside the helmet) was about
20 feet away - with his brains somewhere in-between.

If I have an agenda, it's around helmet straps that come apart
before spinal injury occurs. Obviously bike helmets cannot
develop the inertia that decapitated that person, but I'll bet
I'm not the only rider that's had his bike helmet snag on a
low-hanging tree branch.
--
PeteCresswell

[Kerry Montgomery]

Andre Jute,
I'm not a member of the constituency of anyone on this newsgroup.
I easily qualify for Mensa.
My experience with officers of Mensa has not impressed me enough for me to
ever want to join them.
I do not believe that standardized IQ tests are a good measure of
intelligence.
I do not know what you are implying with your "Sieg Heil"s, please explain.
Oh, and who is the "Goldberg" that you referred to yesterday?
Kerry

[Andre Jute]

Motor racing helmets in my dangerous youth were derived from horsey
headgear and had a little visor. So did the helmet I used for racing
speedboats offshore. I used the same helmet to play polo. I wondered
occasionally what would happen if the visor caught something, because
it was riveted on. The other day, after you mentioned your relative, I
inspected my cycling helmet, a Bell Citi. The visor is pretty fragile
in the context of my 200+ pounds mashing it at speed, and essentially
just clipped in. It might cut you superficially. But there's still a
thick rim on the helmet to catch. (Those truck mirrors Phil mentions
are just the right height when I'm sitting upright on my Kranich,
though in truth I rarely share the road for long with trucks.)

In the context of the accident the topic of this thread, knocking even
a firmly fitted cycling helmet forward over the cyclist's head is
trivial. But that would be a freak accident. You can't design and
build helmets for every freak accident; the thing would become
unusable.

I would be more concerned about the helmet being jerked back, the
straps jerking your head back with it, and your neck being broken.

However, having made an inspection, and jerked on the straps, I'm not
at all certain the strap won't slide out; the friction hold of strap
against strap in the clip is nothing much.

Whether you want the strap to undo itself would depend on the other
circumstance at the time.

A helmet the fittings of which don't behave in a consistent manner
doesn't seem much chop to me.

AJ

[Andre Jute]

Goldstein, an economist who did a statistical analysis of motorcycle
accidents. Search for his name on the previous page of posts and
you'll find the URL.

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 27, 7:33 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per DirtRoadie:
>
> >> I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.
>
> >> If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
> >> it in the process of being ripped off.
>
> >With all due respect, you also appear to have a bias and maybe even an
> >agenda. Might I suggest that we refrain from what is, at best, mere
> >speculation and gracefully leave this thread.
>
> Why do you say that?

Sorry, no offense intended. But it sounded as if you were trying to
make an issue of how dangerous a helmet is based upon the personal
experience you describe. And to some extent you have confirmed that.
But it is a touchy issue. You describe whats sounds like a horrendous
situation where a breakaway strap might have been beneficial, while
the subject of this thread seems to have involved inadequate
securement. Two different individual data points, both tragic.

If the case you describe, wouldn't there likely have been some serious
neck trauma in any case, even without the added mass of a helmet? Not
trying to be insensitive, you brought it up and I am curious. Say the
word and we can leave it at that.

> If I have a bias, it's towards wearing a bike helmet.   It's not
> a religious issue with me, but I do wear one at least 95% of the
> time.   I think I've heard rational arguments by reasonable
> people to the contrary - but I choose the helmet side for now.
>
> But I've had a close family member get his head literally torn
> off by a motorcycle helmet.   His leathers were unblemished.  His
> helmet was still on, his glasses were even in place.  It's just
> that his body was in one place - with all of the cervical
> vertebrae protruding, but his head (inside the helmet) was about
> 20 feet away - with his brains somewhere in-between.
>
> If I have an agenda, it's around helmet straps that come apart
> before spinal injury occurs.

I am not trying to debate, but wouldn't there also be some potential
benefit from a lighter helmet or one that offered an alternate means
of securement? Maybe a way of providing a shoulder or under-arm
mounted structure with more integrity. Similar to a Hans device. Just
thinking out loud. Are there any such things?
Well, this being the internet ...yes, it seems there are.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/r4/leatt-brace/

>   Obviously bike helmets cannot
> develop the inertia that decapitated that person,  but I'll bet
> I'm not the only rider that's had his bike helmet snag on a
> low-hanging tree branch.

I don't know about snagging, but, yes, encounters with above ground
and overhead objects. And sometimes I have been happy to be wearing a
helmet in such encounters.
DR

[kolldata]

when I left the media planet in 1976....motorcycle racers were sane.
Then I came back 2007 watching Laguna....

[John B.]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:55:58 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danov...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Oct 26, 1:45 pm, Henk Fictorie <h...@henkfictorie.nl> wrote:
>> Op 26-10-2011 21:59, Dan O schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 26, 11:02 am, Henk Fictorie<h...@henkfictorie.nl>  wrote:
>> >> Op 26-10-2011 19:05, DirtRoadie schreef:
>>
>> >>> On Oct 26, 10:52 am, Henk Fictorie<h...@henkfictorie.nl>    wrote:
>> >>>> Op 26-10-2011 18:45, DirtRoadie schreef:
>>
>> >>>>> On Oct 26, 10:37 am, Henk Fictorie<h...@henkfictorie.nl>      wrote:
>> >>>>>> Op 26-10-2011 17:31, DirtRoadie schreef:
>>
>> >>>>>>> On Oct 26, 8:35 am, Henk Fictorie<h...@henkfictorie.nl>        wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Op 25-10-2011 2:05, Andre Jute schreef:>        Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked
>> >>>>>>>>> off:
>> >>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motogp/15421404.stm
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Apparently wearing a helmet doesn't prevent injuries. So, this is a case
>> >>>>>>>> in support of the anti-helmet riders.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Your bias is showing.
>>
>> >>>>>>> The linked article describes:
>> >>>>>>> " ...but one of those bikes unfortunately hit the back of Simoncelli's
>> >>>>>>> head, which took his helmet off.
>> >>>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>>> The helmet is the most important piece of any protective clothing -
>> >>>>>>> and if you lose that you're very vulnerable."
>>
>> >>>>>>> To summarize  - the rider was not "wearing" a helmet when injuries
>> >>>>>>> were sustained.
>>
>> >>>>>>> If you are so inclined, you can find and view video of the incident.
>>
>> >>>>>>> But I agree that helmet discussions have little reason for being in
>> >>>>>>> RBT. There are other much more appropriate forums.
>>
>> >>>>>>> DR
>>
>> >>>>>> When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
>> >>>>>> of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
>> >>>>>> is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.
>>
>> >>>>> Again, your bias is showing.
>> >>>>> I'll leave it at that.
>>
>> >>>>> DR
>>
>> >>>> My bias is to always wearing a helmet on fast bikes
>> >>>> (roadbike/mountainbike), but not on a dutch city bike.
>> >>>> I just wanted to point out an illogical conclusion made by Andre.
>>
>> >>> Where do you see anything "illogical?"  For that matter, where do you
>> >>> find a conclusion? We do not know if there would have been a different
>> >>> (and better) outcome if the helmet had stayed on. We DO know it would
>> >>> not have been worse.
>>
>> >>> "Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked off" is a true
>> >>> statement by all accounts.
>>
>> >>> "..They hit Simoncelli's bike and his helmet came off" is a true
>> >>> statement by all accounts.
>>
>> >>> DR

>>
>> >> Quoting OP Andre Jute:
>> >> "Rubbish. Cycle fatalities and the efficacy of helmets are the business
>> >> of this conference, and are constantly raised by everyone else,
>> >> hundreds of threads on the subject over the years. It is only when the
>> >> evidence tends to support the case for helmets that hypocrites like
>> >> you, Clive George, suddenly don't want to discuss the matter."
>>

>> >> Trying to prove that wearing a helmet saves lives/injuries by referring
>> >> to an accident (where it doesn't matter whether the person was or wasn't
>> >> wearing a helmet) is illogical.

>>
>> > I have had my (helmeted) head run smack dab over by fast moving
>> > motorcycles.  I have taken a heavy steel footpeg mount - jutting from
>> > a speeding motorcycle - to the jaw piece of my full coverage helmet.
>> > These are just a couple of examples.  I am satisfied that a good
>> > helmet offers me invaluable protection.  I have no need or desire for
>> > proof that injuries were or ever will be prevented.  I do not think
>> > that I have arrived at this impression by faulty logic.  YMMV.
>>

>> >> A prove should show that an accident was prevented by wearing a helmet.
>>
>> > Can you give a hypothetical example.
>>
>> My last sentence above is obviously incorrect. It should read:
>> A prove should show that an incident was prevented by wearing a helmet.
>>
>
>Yeah, but I don't see how to prove this - short of smashing some human
>heads in controlled tests.
>

I believe that the Snell Lab does exactly that?


>> Proving that hypotheses are true is always difficult, while proving that
>> hypotheses are false is easy. You just need one counterexample (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).
>>
>> I think that the helmet debate is not something you can prove. It is
>> more a question of risk assessment
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment). Should I wear a helmet
>> on my racingbike, dutch city bike or while lying in bed. In all
>> occasions there is a chance that I will have an accident involving my
>> head. But what is the probability and what is the damage. That should
>> weighted against the costs (financial, comfort etc.).
>>
>
>Agreed - absolutely. Now you're right on my wavelength.
>
>What I originally took issue with was the blatant logical flaw in
>assuming that helmets do not prevent injuries just because injuries
>sometimes occur even when a helmet is used.
>
>Certain people would try to have us believe, though, that
>our individual risk is based on statistics of other people. This is
>fine if you're an actuary trying to balance a risk pool; but if the
>issue is your own personal safety, while statistics may inform of some
>typical, generic risks, they are not really applicable to any
>individual.
>
>My anecdotes don't "prove" anything, but were offered, FWIW, in
>response to the idea that a helmet makes no difference when getting
>hit in the head by a speeding motorcycle. Certain people would have

>us believe that bicycle helmets make no difference, either.

--
John B.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Andre Jute:

> But there's still a
>thick rim on the helmet to catch.

When windsurfing, I crashed at enough speed to skip across the
water once or twice. When I flipped over on to my back the
helmet I was wearing caught the water and torqued my neck.

Bottom line was me laying in the water on my back for
I-don't-know-how-long unable to feel anything in my hands/arms or
to move same.

I since switched to a less "catchy" helmet for my heavy air
sailing... but that little incident demonstrated to me that the
forces to injure one's spinal cord don't have to be all that
great.
--
PeteCresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per DirtRoadie:

>If the case you describe, wouldn't there likely have been some serious
>neck trauma in any case, even without the added mass of a helmet? Not
>trying to be insensitive, you brought it up and I am curious. Say the
>word and we can leave it at that.

Beyond the obvious human reactions, I don't think this is an
emotionally-sensitive issue with me. The guy was talented,
charming, and all-around likable.

The world is a poorer place without him - but he was a risk
taker. After the crash, I felt guilty about my initial reaction.
But everybody I spoke with at the funeral said they had the same
reaction: "Well, it had to happen some time and at least he
didn't take any innocent bystanders with him."

I don't know enough to form an opinion about neck injury - and
I'm still wondering what stopped his body hard enough for the
inertia of the helmet to do it's job, yet didn't leave any marks
on the leathers.

OTOH, I only saw the leathers from the top - as the body was
resting on it's back.

OTOOH, I'm assuming that the helmet didn't catch on something
instead. But all parts concerned were still on the road.

OTOOOH, he might have caught the helmet on a guard rail post but
not gone over the rail...

The possibilities go on-and-on - probably more so for somebody
who actually knows something about situations like this.

The guy next to him went over the guard rail. He was still alive
when the EMTs got there, but died shortly afterwards.

--
PeteCresswell

[charlie flaherty]

On Oct 26, 4:12 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 11:59 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > DirtRoadie wrote:
> > > On Oct 26, 11:21 am, "(PeteCresswell)"<x...@y.Invalid>  wrote:
> > >> Per Henk Fictorie:

>
> > >>> When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
> > >>> of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
> > >>> is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.
>

> > >> I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.
>
> > >> If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
> > >> it in the process of being ripped off.
>
> > > With all due respect, you also appear to have a bias and maybe even an
> > > agenda.
>

> > And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle thread, not also display a
> > trolling agenda?
>

> > Does your failure to nag him or other helmeteers not show your own bias?
>
> I explicitly said that I do not think this thread has much to offer.
> That is largely because of the excessive bandwidth which you and your
> kind have caused to be wasted here with your nonsensical rants.
> If it were up to me, I would happily banish ANY helmet thread from
> RBT.
> Are you in?
>
> DR- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

DR
you need to step away from the keyboard
get out
go for a ride

and you're not the arbitor of topics here
don't like a thread
move on
your harrang is worse than the topic

marco was already "off" the motorcycle
dealing with a common low side get off
usually everything just slides off the track in the direction of the
momentom
bike on its fairing, pilot on his leathers
if the bike gets disturbed, say marco is pushing it off his right leg
which is under the machine, the wheels may retouch the asphalt
they did and in an instant the bike was shooting off in the direction
it was pointed
thats right, back across the track, with marco still holding on

it is common to stay with your sliding bike til you are clear of those
coming up from behind
and totally release the bike at the track edge where a whole fresh set
of dynamics begin
so far so good?

edwards ran into marco's mid, lower back
rossi hit him in the neck
the 2 front wheels essentially grabbed him and threw him down flat to
the track surface
and then the 2 front wheels bumped his machine up over his body

marco's helmet strap was broken at one anchor point
that alone indicated the forces at place at that single point up
inside the helmet, near ones ear

with rare exception, motorcycle racers wear close cut hair in season
helmets are sized tight til you feel a little squished at the face
port
if anyone here has ever worn a motorcycle helmet, gotten a haircut,
you know that the helmet instantly feels loose
to accommodate all that hair in a helmet, he had an afro style huge
bush of hair, it had to be atleast one size too large
in the right circumstances, it can get ripped, yanked, pulled off
far easier than a tight fitted helmet to a close cropped head

the killer force was the energy at the strap anchor point where it was
torn from the helmet interior
when marco stopped slideing, he was essentially dead where he lay

the whole accident was just an intersection of factors set in motion
at the moment when this kind of result is the only outcome
faced by every racer, everywhere, every lap, every race

it will be interesting to read the official results of MotoGPs
inquiery into what happened
and more importantly
what they think they can change to avoid this in the future
there will be no HANS device to the rescue here

that's racing, and this is but one of risks they are all aware of

i would disallow bushy hair
although marco seemed to be the only guy adding that risk factor to
the long list they all must sign off on...
much beyond that you tamper with the nature of the beast

Hail Marco!...you were a brave soul...not soon forgotten

and DR., really, you and your kind...
you taint yourself w/ this self important blather
your the guy who says black when evryone says white
lookin' for a fight

don't you have a load of laundry you can do?

[Dan O]

On Oct 27, 11:17 am, davethedave <davedfoster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:43:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > Dan O wrote:
>

> >> I have had my (helmeted) head run smack dab over by fast moving
> >> motorcycles.  I have taken a heavy steel footpeg mount - jutting from a
> >> speeding motorcycle - to the jaw piece of my full coverage helmet.
> >> These are just a couple of examples.  I am satisfied that a good helmet
> >> offers me invaluable protection.  I have no need or desire for proof
> >> that injuries were or ever will be prevented.  I do not think that I
> >> have arrived at this impression by faulty logic.  YMMV.
>

> > That would be a fairly good post - if only this were a motorcycle
> > discussion group!
>
> Well if you are comparing motorcycle helmets to bicycle helmets we
> might as well compare caviar with a three toed sloth.
>
> Both items have completely different design parameters and limitations.
> One lives in trees and shits a third of its bodyweight every time it
> takes a dump. The other can be found gracing the plates of the rich.

My, you have quite a way with analogy :-)

I was not specifically comparing; I was replying to the notion that a
helmet didn't matter when hit by a motorcycle at speed. However, the
gist of how I evaluate the worth of a helmet - and the need, desire,
or expectation of "proof" that it does anything other than what I
might deduce from observation of its properties, experience in use,
and - less so but not without consideration - observation of its use
by others - applies more broadly, yes.

[Frank Krygowski]

Dan O wrote:
> On Oct 27, 9:57 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Dan O wrote:
>>> Certain people would have
>>> us believe that bicycle helmets make no difference, either.
>>
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
>>
>> What _do_ you say about the data in that table, Dan? I don't remember
>> that you've commented on it.
>>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/61a6f1f1fb9c5b0d?hl=en

... etc.

In other words, that data shows no detectable value for helmets. But
since the people posting it don't think helmets have detectable value,
the data justifying their view must be ignored?

Seems if that's the standard, then any pro-helmet data must be ignored
if it's published by anyone who's pro-helmet.

That would quickly please those people who prefer not to look at any
data at all. They could just go by propaganda and their own feelings.
IOW, science be damned.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

I used the word "if." It's a conditional modifier Look it up if you
do not understand what it means. This group is is "tech," not "soc"
nor "misc."
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/recbikes.html

FYI, you might want to note this:
http://www.webbikeworld.com/r4/leatt-brace/
(BTW I'm just the messenger giving you a courtesy heads up - I don't
think this is the group for further discussion)

> that's racing, and this is but one of risks they are all aware of
>
> i would disallow bushy hair
> although marco seemed to be the only guy adding that risk factor to
> the long list they all must sign off on...
> much beyond that you tamper with the nature of the beast
>
> Hail Marco!...you were a brave soul...not soon forgotten
>
> and DR., really, you and your kind...
> you taint yourself w/ this self important blather
> your the guy who says black when evryone says white
> lookin' for a fight
>
> don't you have a load of laundry you can do?

Not quite sure what prompted your emotional outburst.
I have no dispute with your description of the incident (and don't
really care - at least about your description.)

You did forget to mention that the ambulance crew dropped him, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx-gFNTqhx0

I take it this Marco fellow was a close personal friend of yours. You
have my
sympathy. And I had not realized that you were standing by in the
wings as the sole expert on this particular incident.

I wholeheartedly agree on one count, I do need to get out for a ride.
However I am for the moment nursing a wrist injury which is, as yet,
somewhat aggravated by grasping handlebars.

DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Oct 27, 3:24 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > far more pertinent than the anonymous "DirtRoadie's" refrence to Milan-
> > San Remo data - a reference which just resurrects another argument he
> > lost.
>
> Um, who was the judge and jury?  I never heard a verdict.

I think you have to get in touch with Frank's old imaginary pal Fred.
DR

[Dan O]

On Oct 28, 9:34 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 9:57 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Dan O wrote:
> >>>   Certain people would have
> >>> us believe that bicycle helmets make no difference, either.
>
> >>http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
>
> >> What _do_ you say about the data in that table, Dan?  I don't remember
> >> that you've commented on it.
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/61a6f1f1fb9c5b0d...
>

... in which - after taking a look at the web site, Dan's propaganda
sensor is pegged and goes "beep-beep-beep-beep-beep... !")

(Holy cow! I just went back to their home page for another
appraisal. Here's a good place to check - "Papers for and against
helmet effectiveness." That sounds objective. Maybe I judged them
too hastily. So I go to the "for" list, click a couple of random
links, and both show a brief, dry synopsis followed by extensive
laundry lists of "Peer Criticism". Well, that's their format, I
guess. Okay. Let's check the "against" list. I go there, click on
four or five random links looking for "Peer Criticism" - found none.)

> ... etc.
>

... in which Dan specifically states unanswered questions necessary to
a rational evaluation of the data... but the obviously biased web site
provides answers for you, which I guess you're just supposed to take
their word for on faith, them obviously being such right-minded
fellows.)

> In other words, that data shows no detectable value for helmets.  But
> since the people posting it don't think helmets have detectable value,
> the data justifying their view must be ignored?
>

Not necessarily ignored, and absolutely not by reason of it's outcome,
but to be rationally considered we need to know pretty much exactly
what the data represents. All I see is a remarkably constant rate of
injuries, and a remarkably constant percentage of them that include
head injuries.

In any case, the information has no meaning with respect to helmet
efficacy unless corresponding exposure rates and helmet use rates for
the same group are provided. Under "Notes", the web page tries to
give "meaning" to the numbers by making some claims about those other
things, but there is not even so much as a source cited for the
claims.

Even if sources *were* cited, I'd still have to care enough to do some
crosschecking and more digging and... well, I'm not into spending my
life the way you do, okay? I evaluate the worth of a helmet for
myself substantially as I described earlier in this thread.

> Seems if that's the standard, then any pro-helmet data must be ignored
> if it's published by anyone who's pro-helmet.
>
> That would quickly please those people who prefer not to look at any
> data at all.  They could just go by propaganda and their own feelings.
> IOW, science be damned.
>

All your words.

[Duane Hebert]

Check the patrons listed here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html
It's sort of like Dan backing up
his statements with a link to "Dan's Home Page."