Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

[Wolfgang Strobl]

[email protected] (Tom Keats):

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "GaryG" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Not where I ride....the vast majority of cyclists I see on the west coast
>> and the mountain west are wearing helmets (well, except for the "cyclists"
>> who ride Wally-World bikes balancing a case of beer on the handlebars with a
>> cigarette dangling between their lips).
>
>Nobody balances a case of beer on their handlebar. That's too
>inviting of disaster. Better to nestle it under one arm like a
>hen guarding her brood, or a cyclist-surfer taking his/her board
>to the beach.

Like the old guy on one of the photos in the following collage.

http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/EmiliaRomagna/images/faenza.jpg

Or perhaps like an umbrella:

http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/EmiliaRomagna/images/pict2898.jpg


(both taken from http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/EmiliaRomagna/index.html)

[...]

>I infer from your post that you believe bicycle riders' legitimacies
>as bicycle riders depends on possession and use of bicycle helmets,
>and perhaps other garb, accoutrements and mammon-begotten stuff.
>
>I don't think so.

Neither do I. I see bicylcing as an inexpensive mode of transport, a
healty activity and a enjoyable excercise, achievable to almost
erverybody.

On the other hand, as a long term all day, all year utility cyclist, I
reserve the right to be somewhat contemptous about those gimmicks some
people seem to need, in order to handle a tools as simple and
ubiquituous as a bicycle.


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> writes:

> On the other hand, as a long term all day, all year utility cyclist, I
> reserve the right to be somewhat contemptous about those gimmicks some
> people seem to need, in order to handle a tools as simple and
> ubiquituous as a bicycle.

I rather feel the same way, but before anyone gets their dander up,
let me note the "somewhat contemptous"-ness is for the gimmicks, not
the people.

OTOH, my hat's off to those who experimentally quest for The Thing
That Does The Job Well. If salad tongs make a good front derailer
for somebody, all power to 'em. Same for QR hose couplings as
trailer hitches, fenders made from plastic flamingoes (hi, Zoot)
and other imaginative, artistic & elegant solutions.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[jtaylor]

"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:

> >
> >Um, what threads have you been reading? Besides being "shamed" for
wearing
> >lids (why don't you wear one whilst walking, showering, crapping, etc.),
>
> No, you get shamed for not thinking clearly or being able to present a
> coherent argument.
>
>
> >we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively supporting/
MHLs.
>
> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a MHL,
_BUT_"
> appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't
actively
> support a MHL.

Sorni is on record as stating that the "brits" deserve an MHL.

 

[Sorni]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:

>>> we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively
>>> supporting/ MHLs.

>> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a
>> MHL, _BUT_" appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the
>> poster didn't actively support a MHL.

> Sorni is on record as stating that the "brits" deserve an MHL.


That was Ed, you moron. What's that, like five stupid mistakes by you in
the last 2-3 days? (Not counting your lies, of course -- including saying
that I or Ozark or /someone/ *started a thread* about "deviant sexual
practices".)

You're on a roll.

To obscurity...

 

[Tony Raven]

Sorni wrote:
> (Not counting your lies, of course -- including saying
> that I or Ozark or /someone/ *started a thread* about "deviant sexual
> practices".)
>

That accusation really seems to have touched a raw nerve with you Sorni.
Is there a reason why it would? If its a sensitive accusation you are
only making it worse by continually getting it out and parading it. The
rest of us would have forgotten it ages ago but for that.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:
>
> >>> we're told that by choosing to use helmets we're /actively
> >>> supporting/ MHLs.
>
> >> No, merely passively. But in practice, claims of "I don't support a
> >> MHL, _BUT_" appear in posts that would be utterly pointless if the
> >> poster didn't actively support a MHL.
>
> > Sorni is on record as stating that the "brits" deserve an MHL.
>
>
> That was Ed, you moron.

To which post you and Ozark immediately concurred.

How is it that your country, populated overwhelmingly (as you state) by
helmet-wearers and people who claim to be "pro-choice", has MHL's in over
2/3 of the your states? Is it because Braggins is correct - "...(claims of)
I don't support a MHL...would be utterly pointless if the poster didn't
actively support a MHL"?

I note also that you are still using insult as your dialectical tactic of
choice, in spite of the fact that you have agreed that to do so is abusive.
Is this by choice?

 

[Sorni]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Sorni wrote (context removed; biz as usual):

>> (Not counting your lies, of course -- including saying
>> that I or Ozark or /someone/ *started a thread* about "deviant sexual
>> practices".)

> That accusation really seems to have touched a raw nerve with you
> Sorni. Is there a reason why it would? If its a sensitive
> accusation you are only making it worse by continually getting it out
> and parading it. The rest of us would have forgotten it ages ago but
> for that.

Last word on the subject, I hope. The guy (?) was humping my every post for
a few days, posting his "list" that all but declared that *I* had made a
series of comments (they were not all mine) AND had "started a thread" about
another NG member.

It got tiresome -- sort of like JFT's unprovoked returning to silly "burning
questions" after weeks -- but this had mal intent, obviously.

The problem with OCD Flailor is he wasn't just lying or mistaken about me --
like he did just today in the text you deleted, by the way -- /no one/
started such a thread. If that were his only lie or distortion or flat out
mistake, then that would be one thing; but he's made many. That one was
just the most despicable, IMO.

Now that I realize he's ill and not just a lying weasel, I'll try to let it
go more readily. Probably <eg> .

 

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Last word on the subject, I hope. The guy (?) was humping my every post
for
> a few days, posting his "list" that all but declared that *I* had made a
> series of comments (they were not all mine)

Ah yes, the list.

Here it is (please note that this list was posted not by me, but by another
poster who had tired of this sort of thing):

"arrogant prigs"
"post-humper"
"PITA"
"Horse friggin' ****"
"pompous gasbag"
"Asshole"
"stick-in-the-bum"
" hypocrite"
"weaseling "
"self-important"
"puffed up"
"small time"
"pissant "
"conceited, disingenous jerk "

Pray tell us, Sorni, if these are not all yours, which of them do you
disavow?

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:32:47 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It got tiresome -- sort of like JFT's unprovoked returning to silly
>> "burning questions" after weeks -- but this had mal intent,
>> obviously.
>
> SO you ADMIT that my queSTions DID NOT HAVE /* MALEVOLENT*/ INTENT.
> (Why did you not write out the /whole/ word malevolent? Typcial
> weasly snipping of words!)
>
> Sigh. ROUND AND ROUND WE go you raven liar.

You've never hear the expression "mal intent"? You sure /exhibit/ it
enough.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:32:47 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It got tiresome -- sort of like JFT's unprovoked returning to silly "burning
>questions" after weeks -- but this had mal intent, obviously.

SO you ADMIT that my queSTions DID NOT HAVE /* MALEVOLENT*/ INTENT.
(Why did you not write out the /whole/ word malevolent? Typcial
weasly snipping of words!)

Sigh. ROUND AND ROUND WE go you raven liar.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Taunto]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>>
>> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit
>> his/her head on the kerb would that child
>>
>> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
>> 2) Come out injury free
>> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
>> 4) Be better off with a helmet
>> 5) Some or all of the above?
>
>
> The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3.
>
> If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head on
> a kerb would that child
>
> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
> 2) Come out injury free
> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
> 4) Be better off with a helmet
> 5) Some or all of the above?
>
> This second scenario is far more frequent than your first scenario and
> the evidence is that head injuries form a significantly greater
> proportion of child non-cycling head injuries than child cycling
> injuries that require hospital treatment. So shouldn't all four year
> olds wear helmets all the time?
>

If said 4 year old wobbles out into oncoming traffic, and gets his bike
clipped by a car, throwing him 15 feet headfirst into a curb:

1. Is it the parents fault for not watching him
2. Is it the parents fault for not making him wear a helmet
3. Is it the driver's fault because children that young can't be held
responsible for their actions.
4. Be better off without a helmet.
5. Some or all of the above.

 

[jtaylor]

"Taunto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> If said 4 year old wobbles out into oncoming traffic, and gets his bike
> clipped by a car, throwing him 15 feet headfirst into a curb:
>
> 1. Is it the parents fault for not watching him
> 2. Is it the parents fault for not making him wear a helmet
> 3. Is it the driver's fault because children that young can't be held
> responsible for their actions.
> 4. Be better off without a helmet.
> 5. Some or all of the above.
>

4.

 

[Marz]

Taunto wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Hadron Quark wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit
> >> his/her head on the kerb would that child
> >>
> >> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
> >> 2) Come out injury free
> >> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
> >> 4) Be better off with a helmet
> >> 5) Some or all of the above?
> >
> >
> > The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3.
> >
> > If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head on
> > a kerb would that child
> >
> > 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
> > 2) Come out injury free
> > 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
> > 4) Be better off with a helmet
> > 5) Some or all of the above?
> >
> > This second scenario is far more frequent than your first scenario and
> > the evidence is that head injuries form a significantly greater
> > proportion of child non-cycling head injuries than child cycling
> > injuries that require hospital treatment. So shouldn't all four year
> > olds wear helmets all the time?
> >
>
> If said 4 year old wobbles out into oncoming traffic, and gets his bike
> clipped by a car, throwing him 15 feet headfirst into a curb:
>
> 1. Is it the parents fault for not watching him
> 2. Is it the parents fault for not making him wear a helmet
> 3. Is it the driver's fault because children that young can't be held
> responsible for their actions.
> 4. Be better off without a helmet.
> 5. Some or all of the above.



1 then 3.

 

[jtaylor]

Tony Raven wrote:

> I've noticed that there is generally a division between those who
> question the efficacy of helmets who tend to use their real names and
> those who are staunch believers in helmets who go by pseudonyms like
> Ozark and Sorni and Strange Quark. I wonder why that would be?
>

Part and parcel of the lack of civil behaviour, lack of appreciation of fact
as a foundation of dialectic, and lack of any pretense to stick to the
point.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill wrote:

> I never use a helmet but not for the reasons most might think. I wear
> a baseball cap with the bill to keep the sun from coming over the top
> of my sunglasses into my eyes. If I could find a helmet with a sun
> visor on the front I might consider wearing one. Mid day sun hurts my
> eyes, especially the light that comes around the corners of my
> sunglasses, and has sometimes interfered with my ability to see where
> I am going. There's a different point of view for you.
> Bill (real name) Baka

Bill, there are a gajillion helmets with visors on the front -- plus of
course many people wear a "sun visor" (cap or actual visor) under their
helmet. The only reason not to on a road bike is that sometimes it's hard
on the neck having to lift the head in order to see under the visor.
Shouldn't be a problem on your purple girl's Huffy (or whatever you're
riding these days)...

Sorni

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> I never use a helmet but not for the reasons most might think. I wear
>> a baseball cap with the bill to keep the sun from coming over the top
>> of my sunglasses into my eyes. If I could find a helmet with a sun
>> visor on the front I might consider wearing one. Mid day sun hurts my
>> eyes, especially the light that comes around the corners of my
>> sunglasses, and has sometimes interfered with my ability to see where
>> I am going. There's a different point of view for you.
>> Bill (real name) Baka
>
> Bill, there are a gajillion helmets with visors on the front -- plus of
> course many people wear a "sun visor" (cap or actual visor) under their
> helmet. The only reason not to on a road bike is that sometimes it's hard
> on the neck having to lift the head in order to see under the visor.
> Shouldn't be a problem on your purple girl's Huffy (or whatever you're
> riding these days)...
>
> Sorni
>
>
Sorni,
The Huffy is semi retired and I am riding my Schwinn Super Sport 700 x
25? more these days. Even with my baseball caps the visor gets in the
way when I am head down and going for speed, and then a truck comes by
and blasts the cap off anyway. I just haven't seen any helmets that meet
my personal preference, and a large part of that is keeping my eyes
protected from UV rays, which are a lot more damaging than science is
letting on.
Bill Baka

 

[D2]

>I'm not surprised you find it confusing, Sorni. I'll try to help.

>Bike helmets are severely limited by the need to be very light, well
>ventilated, provide some protection over the entire "scalp" surface,
>and be fairly inexpensive (i.e. they can't cost as much as the
>vehicle).
>
>Blah, blah, blah,
>etc.
>ad nauseam
>
>Want to learn more? Oh, sorry - of course you don't! ;-)
>
>But those that do can check out:
>
>McLean A.J., Fildes B.N., Kloeden C.J., Digges K.H., Anderson R.W.G.,
>Moore V.M. & Simpson D.A., Prevention of head injuries to car
>occupants: an investigation of interior padding options, Federal Office
>of Road Safety - Report CR 160, NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit,
>University of Adelaide and Monash University Accident Research Centre
>
>- Frank Krygowski


For cryin' out loud, it's over a year later and you're still in here
beating the same old drum, Frank? You should spend less time
pontificating and more time riding (with or without the helmet, who
cares?) or get a girlfriend or a pet or something.

And I see you still possess your condescending communication skills.
How charming.