Bike helmet crushed, but head fine



"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in news:AN73i.10901$Ut6.2616
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

<snip>
> Let me guess - you believe that soft sand and asphalt are equal? So is
> Russell your lover or just your butt buddy?

Let me guess, you would let a truck run over your head in soft sand
secure in the knowledge it would cushion the shock?

But seriously, to paraphrase the immortal Al Bundy, I think I could do
better than some guy hanging out here.

--
Bill Asher
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Let me guess - you believe that soft sand and asphalt are equal? So is
>> Russell your lover or just your butt buddy?

William Asher wrote:
> But seriously, to paraphrase the immortal Al Bundy, I think I could do
> better than some guy hanging out here.

<rhetorical?>
So if Kunich thinks rbr is a gay bar why is he hanging out here ?
</rhetorical?>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> Let me guess - you believe that soft sand and asphalt are equal? So is
> >> Russell your lover or just your butt buddy?
>
> William Asher wrote:
> > But seriously, to paraphrase the immortal Al Bundy, I think I could do
> > better than some guy hanging out here.
>
> <rhetorical?>
> So if Kunich thinks rbr is a gay bar why is he hanging out here ?
> </rhetorical?>

He just likes to watch...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:56:23 +0000, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

><rhetorical?>
>So if Kunich thinks rbr is a gay bar why is he hanging out here ?
></rhetorical?>

Even the ugly ones hope to get lucky.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in news:AN73i.10901$Ut6.2616
> @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> <snip>
>> Let me guess - you believe that soft sand and asphalt are equal? So is
>> Russell your lover or just your butt buddy?
>
> Let me guess, you would let a truck run over your head in soft sand
> secure in the knowledge it would cushion the shock?

I didn't think that you'd answer the question. Silly me, expecting some
worthless coward to act like a man.
 
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
>> news:AN73i.10901$Ut6.2616 @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Let me guess - you believe that soft sand and asphalt are equal? So
>>> is Russell your lover or just your butt buddy?
>>
>> Let me guess, you would let a truck run over your head in soft sand
>> secure in the knowledge it would cushion the shock?
>
> I didn't think that you'd answer the question. Silly me, expecting
> some worthless coward to act like a man.

Tom:

Excellent points. Before you read my response, stand in front of a
mirror and rock your head around until your brain falls back into the
hole like in one of those old games from Cracker Jacks.

Here's the logic train:

1. You challenge someone to provide "an example of a truck running over
someone's head without injury." There was no stipulation on your part
as to conditions, which I assumed meant that you thought it was so
dellusional that a truck could run over someones head without injury
that there was no need for stipulations.

2. In order to show you that maybe it wasn't so dellusional or at least
that you should have provided some stipulations, I do a quick google
search and turn up a case where a truck ran over a woman's head and she
was uninjured. The fact it was on a sandy beach didn't escape me, the
sand obviously provided some cushioning. However, it did fit into your
original request "an example of ..." so I figured "What the hell, I
haven't been called gay on usenet in a year or so, and everybody knows
you are always willing to listen to reason, so maybe I will show you
that under conditions where there is some impact protection involved, by
golly a truck can run over someone's head without injury." I thought
you might be able to extrapolate that it might be possible the
protection of a bicycle helmet might provide the same level of impact
protection as sand and so it was at least in the realm of possibility
that everyone was telling the truth and the truck really had run over
that guy's head. Silly me, I had forgotten the whole "brain coming out
of it's little hole in the plate in your head like one of those Cracker
Jack games thing" and didn't realize this would go by you completely.
So I apologize for upsetting you.

--
Bill Asher
 
William Asher wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in

>> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in

> Here's the logic train:

Dumbass,

Mama got thrown off the logic train when she decided to get into
it with Kunich. There is no getting back on. But you knew that.

Bob Schwartz
 
"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
>>> news:AN73i.10901$Ut6.2616 @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> Let me guess - you believe that soft sand and asphalt are equal? So
>>>> is Russell your lover or just your butt buddy?
>>>
>>> Let me guess, you would let a truck run over your head in soft sand
>>> secure in the knowledge it would cushion the shock?
>>
>> I didn't think that you'd answer the question. Silly me, expecting
>> some worthless coward to act like a man.
>
> Tom:
>
> Excellent points. Before you read my response, stand in front of a
> mirror and rock your head around until your brain falls back into the
> hole like in one of those old games from Cracker Jacks.
>
> Here's the logic train:
>
> 1. You challenge someone to provide "an example of a truck running over
> someone's head without injury." There was no stipulation on your part
> as to conditions, which I assumed meant that you thought it was so
> dellusional that a truck could run over someones head without injury
> that there was no need for stipulations.

I see that you assumed that a legal and binding contract was formed in which
common sense was ignored and statistical improbabilities were not excluded.
Either that or since you're a jackass with all of the courage of an alley
cat you figured that finding a case that was entirely unlike the case in
question you'd be able to feel proud of yourself.

> 2. In order to show you that maybe it wasn't so dellusional or at least
> that you should have provided some stipulations

You mean there's no difference between a mother slowly backing over a child
whose head was on soft surface and a man who claims that a truck ran over
his head at speed on an asphalt road surface?
 
On May 20, 11:08 am, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote > > "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> >> <snip>
> >>> Let me guess - you believe that soft sand and asphalt are equal? So
> >>> is Russell your lover or just your butt buddy?


> Here's the logic train: ...
>
>
> 2. In order to show you that maybe it wasn't so dellusional or at least
> that you should have provided some stipulations, I do a quick google
> search and turn up a case where a truck ran over a woman's head and she
> was uninjured. The fact it was on a sandy beach didn't escape me, the
> sand obviously provided some cushioning. However, it did fit into your
> original request "an example of ..." so I figured "What the hell, I
> haven't been called gay on usenet in a year or so, and everybody knows
> you are always willing to listen to reason, so maybe I will show you
> that under conditions where there is some impact protection involved, by
> golly a truck can run over someone's head without injury." I thought
> you might be able to extrapolate that it might be possible the
> protection of a bicycle helmet might provide the same level of impact
> protection as sand and so it was at least in the realm of possibility
> that everyone was telling the truth and the truck really had run over
> that guy's head. Silly me, I had forgotten the whole "brain coming out
> of it's little hole in the plate in your head like one of those Cracker
> Jack games thing" and didn't realize this would go by you completely.
> So I apologize for upsetting you.

Dumbass,

The good news is, global warming will increase
desertification everywhere, increasing the supply
of sand, and developed countries that have (as TomK
predicts) destroyed their economies by instituting
carbon taxes will be unable to repave asphalt on a
regular basis and will have to replace streets
with sandy dirt roads and cars with beach buggies
with wider softer tires. So in the near future,
no one will have to wear a bicycle helmet, because
if any buses happen to run over their heads, the
sand will protect them.

The doubly good news is that this will starve the
economies of our enemies in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi
Arabia because they will no longer be able to choke
us with their sand monopolies. The future's so bright,
I gotta wear shades.

Ben
RBR Safety Officer
 
On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:38:24 -0700, "Phil Holman"
<piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:

>
>This is just a "survivable scenario" and doesn't reflect what actually
>happened.
>
>Phil H

Actually doesn't consider a live axle either, does it? Assumes that
the load will be somewhat equal with the tires maintaining somewhat
equal contact with the ground? Anyone that has driven live axles under
extremis know this isn't so - you can have three tires on the ground
and one in the air. In fact, it used to happen or close to it on a
regular basis back in the 60s in SCCA. And there are plenty of trucks
still running live axles in the rear. Please recompute using empty
back of truck, live axle unweighted, running 28 spoke wheels. Or not.

That possibility and that Kunich says it is impossible makes me
believe it probably happened.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:38:24 -0700, "Phil Holman"
> <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
>>
>>This is just a "survivable scenario" and doesn't reflect what actually
>>happened.
>>
>>Phil H
>
> Actually doesn't consider a live axle either, does it? Assumes that
> the load will be somewhat equal with the tires maintaining somewhat
> equal contact with the ground? Anyone that has driven live axles under
> extremis know this isn't so - you can have three tires on the ground
> and one in the air. In fact, it used to happen or close to it on a
> regular basis back in the 60s in SCCA. And there are plenty of trucks
> still running live axles in the rear. Please recompute using empty
> back of truck, live axle unweighted, running 28 spoke wheels. Or not.

It's not going to change much, if any. A 150 lb wheel assembly moving 8
inches is comparible to a 300lb axle moving 4 inches (cg distance). I
thought I overestimated on the vehicle and component weights so from the
limited information we have, we cannot say that this accident is not
survivable. A skull is good for 3000lb for .0036 seconds if the load is
evenly distributed (the only assistance the helmet could provide).

>
> That possibility and that Kunich says it is impossible makes me
> believe it probably happened.

The only thing we can say for sure is we cannot discount the
possiblility of it happening.

Phil H
 
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>> news:p[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A white paneled delivery truck ran over a UW-Madison graduate
>>>>>> student's head on Division Street Friday afternoon and, except for
>>>>>> a concussion, he wasn't hurt."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What more has to be said about that article?
>>>>>
>>>>> Errr, how about this; the hoop compressive strength of a skull is
>>>>> orders of magnitude stronger than a helmet in this loading
>>>>> scenario. Even pro-helmet advocates will recognize that. You're
>>>>> slipping Tom
>>>>
>>>> Did you bother to read the article Phil?
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Using conservative estimations: such a truck weighs over two tons.
>>>> Tires for such a vehicle are some 8 linches wide and have about 8 sq
>>>> inches of contact area. For dual rear that adds up to about 80 psi
>>>> or so and running over someone's head would put about 600 lbs
>>>> (estimated weight on a wheel) or more on that head.
>>>>
>>>> Experimental evidence has shown that a force of 880 to 1500lbs must
>>>> he applied to the skull for less than 0.001 of a second to cause a
>>>> fracture.
>>>>
>>>> If the vehicle was turning the corner at 20 mph (probably high) that
>>>> would put a force of some 600+ lbs on his skull for some 3
>>>> milliseconds.
>>>
>>> Thats about 60gs for 3 milliseconds. 300gs comes out to about a .0036
>>> sec time interval for a Head Impact Criteria of 1000 which is a
>>> fairly commonly used standard limit in the aircraft industry. See FAR
>>> 25.562 if you're interested.
>>>>
>>>> Either this guy's head is solid bone or his head wasn't run over.
>>>
>>> You know as well as I do that the range of skull strengths is about
>>> 100% (150 to 300 gs). You're not going to disprove it with numbers,
>>> now if you could track down a web-cam.
>>>
>>> BTW, what part did the helmet play in spreading the load over his
>>> noggin?Yeh, that question would be good for at least another 112
>>> posts if we hadn't done this already.
>>
>> Phil, you don't understand the difference between gees and actual
>> weight >do you
>
> That's funny Tom. Head impact criteria considers head acceleration. 300gs
> for .0036 seconds is about a 3000lb load for that time interval.
>
>>
>> The step UP onto something like a head would generate several hundreds
>> >of gees. Add the weight of the vehicle and there's absolutely NO WAY
>> that could happen.
>
> I would have thought so but, a truck turning right would have the roll
> over wheel on the inside with less load. Could have been on two wheels for
> all we know.
>
> Why don't you contact him and straighten him out, after all .........
> "I didn't see it coming, but I sure felt it roll over my head. It feels
> really strange to have a truck run over your head."

Phil, do you really think that this guy would be a reliable witness? Don't
you think that shock and fear would have distorted his sense a great deal.

I don't think that he's BSing, I just think that he didn't have a truck run
over his head and since I calculated that the static loads just from the
weight of the truck had to be at the very least somewhere in the 600 lb
region for at least 3 milliseconds and since Snell says that a grown man's
skull fractures from 800-1200 lbs for one millisecond the additional
acceleration and twisting motion from a wheel bouncing over his head would
have been fatal.

I'm not calling the guy a liar, rather I'm saying that he's an unreliable
witness because of the nearness of death.
 
in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (' [email protected]') wrote:

> On May 14, 2:25 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=133934
>
> Separate threads appeared about the original news article in RBM, RBT,
> and RBR
>
> Two months later, truck fails to crush unhelmeted head:
>
>
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS/707130322

Yawn. Helmets are weak, skulls are strong. News at eleven.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> Yawn. Helmets are weak, skulls are strong. News at eleven.

Not the nine o' clock news.
 
On Jul 14, 7:31 am, _ <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:47:47 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:06:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS...
>
> > If he'd have been wearing a helmet, it would probably have been
> > destroyed, which means he would have been dead without one.
>
> Um, are you tongue-in-cheek here John?

Sounds like a well considered scientific opinion to me. :)

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Re: Bike helmet crushed, but head fine
Replies
10
Views
276
Road Cycling
[email protected]
C
CAMPYBOB
Hey zipp...i found your next bike w/matching shoes & helmet!
Replies
0
Views
2K
Road Cycling
CAMPYBOB
CAMPYBOB
bob thornton
bike helmet
Replies
0
Views
653
Road Cycling
bob thornton
bob thornton
A
Helmet cam action camera for Mountain bike or road
Replies
0
Views
656
Road Cycling
[email protected]
A
L
wreck.bike Luminary Helmet Digest [was Re: Helmets]
Replies
0
Views
443
Road Cycling
Lars Lehtonen
L
Top Bottom Back