Fignon Quote: "Blame it on bad luck" What a F****** Idiot !

[George Privon]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Tom Kunich wrote:
| "Café de Colombia" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
|
|>When the helmet breaks, it clearly does absorb a significant amount
|
| of
|
|>energy that would have otherwise been transfered to the head. Your statement that "When the helmet
|>breaks it essentially absorbs NO
|
| energy"
|
|>is absolutely untrue from a physics standpoint (so where did the
|
| energy
|
|>come from to break the helmet if not the fall itself, Tom?).
|
|
| Then please be the first to show us the numbers. You'll find that a breaking helmet absorbs only
| about 1/100th of the energy that the collapsing foam does. If you think that is significant then
| perhaps you are one of those people with the 8 lb head.

The breakage doesn't directly absorb much energy. However, the pieces that move in different
directions gain momemtum and so they do remove momentum from the head-ground system, thus lestening
the impact on the head.

george
- --
[email protected]
- --
http://privon.com
- --
"Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version:
GnuPG v1.2.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+cS9NNyfm0mDgbJ8RAn/GAJ9rBxP4KUrTo2tAlwkd7rsi4nlbFACfYovJ 12KAPtkBJG5MEDsrM+T6klw= =n/Yq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[S. Anderson]

One more time, this time with some content....

You know, every day, millions of Americans get in cars and put their lives in danger driving to work
without helmets on. Dozens of people die every day in car wrecks from head injuries that could be
prevented by wearing a helmet, certainly more die than in bicycle crashes. And yet few people
advocate wearing a helmet while driving. Is that stupid? If you ride a motorcycle and you're
involved in an accident, there's a very good chance you will die, much higher than in a car. Is it
stupid to ride a motorcycle? Considering the incredibly high mortality rate of motorcycle accidents
it could be argued that motorcycles should be banned altogether.

My point is, there is risk in everything. I think that any adult is capable of assessing the risk
and deciding for themself whether the risk is acceptable. And nanny-laws like helmet laws degrade us
as people, implying that we are incapable of making decisions for ourselves. I once spoke to someone
who said that 3-wheel ATV's should be banned because they are inherently unstable and dangerous. I
asked him about motorcycles...pointing out that they are slightly more unstable than a 3-wheel
ATV's...he just stared at me like I was discussing string theory.

Use your heads people!! Get a helmet on when driving to work!!! ;-)

Cheers,

Scott..
--
Scott Anderson

"Seth Moore" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Absolutely - Mr. Kivilev by making the "adult professional" decision to
not
> wear a helmet - (which according to his surgeon most likely would have spared his life) has by his
> actions become an organ donor and has left his young wife a widow and left his child to now grow
> up without a father. How about his parents ? His team and teamates ?
>
> Adult professional ? - not by a damn sight. Vain, infantile, stupid, selfish, unprofessional come
> to mind but most certainly not "adult professional" who should have been allowed to make his own
> decisions regarding his safety. Not even close !
>
> Seth Moore

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Gary German" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 1) Monash University Accident Research Centre, in their report
titled
> "Evaluation of the Bicycle Helmet Wearing Law in Victoria during its
First
> Four Years" (available at: http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/es76.htm), concluded:

I wish you would actually read the papers before citing them. In this study the year after a helmet
law was passed there was a large and measured drop-off in cycling. This large reduction in cycling
had a secondary effect - by the third year the rates of injuries and fatalities were back up to
pre-helmet law rates even though there were fewer bicyclists. The net result was an increase in the
danger to fewer cyclists on the road.

> 2) Wasserman et al. American Journal of Sports Medicine Vol 18:1 pp
96-7,
> 1990. "Predicts helmets would reduce concussions by 29%, skull
fractures by 82%."

Note the term "predicts"? Again these calculation were based on the faulty data supplied by the
Harborview study and is completely incoherent. Most of these so-called studies that show positives
are these same sort of "predictions" using the false data set from Harborview. And interesting aside
about Harborview: those wearing helmets were found to be mostly young white children whose parents
bought them a bicycle and helmet and walked with them mostly in parks and along bike paths. Those
without helmets were dominated by young black kids who learned to ride and rode by themselves or in
groups of other kids. Why was this not cited in the Harborview study?

> 3) Attewell, Glase & McFadden, Accident Analysis and Prevention,
2001 pp
> 345-352
>
> Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis "Analysis of peer-reviewed studies which include
> individual injury
and
> helmet use data, published 1987-98. Overall risk reduction 45% for
head
> injury, 33% for brain injury, 27% for facial injury, 29% for fatal
injury.
> Some evidence of increased neck injury. Authors plead for greater
acceptance
> of helmet use."

Peer reviewed study. Again the Harborview study and in case you didn't know, they never answered the
criticisms of their study by their peers. Interestingly enough, when Thompson was asked why the
figures for helmet safety increases had never shown up in the real world, her comment was "I don't
believe it."

Sort of like your response of not actually reading the papers or trying to critically
understand them?

 

[Tom Kunich]

"George Privon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> The breakage doesn't directly absorb much energy. However, the
pieces
> that move in different directions gain momemtum and so they do
remove
> momentum from the head-ground system, thus lestening the impact on
the head.

Agreed George, but it is virtually nothing when discussing the forces concerned.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It is obvious to me that bicycle helmets as they are designed are a relative, not absolute
> protection against head injuries. It is
altogether
> possible in my mind that while they will not prevent death in all
cases,
> there may well be a threshold impact that will cause death or
serious
> injury without a helmet and less serious injury with one.

So did I think, but the statistics have never shown a change in the percentages of head injuries
serious or fatal.

> It is obvious looking at the design of a bicycle helmet that protection is only one of many
> factors in their design.

I think that if you read the actual Snell B-95 helmet standard which is the highest standard in the
world (BTW, the "international standard is pitifully less effective) and have some grounding in
physics you'll be able to see that there is no chance that a helmet can have more than a passing
effect in your normal accident.

http://home.earthlink.net/~tkunich/_wsn/page2.html

 

[Tom Kunich]

There are between 400 and 500 fatal head injuries to bicycle users each year and another 2500 or so
serious head injuries. Almost all of the "serious head injuries" resolve to normal or near normal in
the victim. There is about 1 bicyclist killed racing about once every couple of years or so in the
USA. Bicycle racing is all hell and gone safer that just about anything else you can do including
laying in your bed (a significant number of head injury deaths occur from people rolling out of a
tall bed and hitting their heads on the end tables.)

In Oklahoma the largest source of head injuries is Rodeo followed by football, Cycling isn't even
cited in their statistics.

There are some 50,000 head injury fatalities thoughout the USA each year.

Bicylcing is SAFE SAFE SAFE. But fools have been known to kill themselves with teeshirts
and pillows.

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > "Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Café de Colombia wrote:
> > > > That money ends up coming from tax dollars, insurance premium
> > pools, and
> > > > federal grants - because of this, the government has a right
to
> > act paternally
> > > > and your argument that the issue is nothing but one of pure
free
> > choice simply
> > > > does not hold water.
> > >
> > > Unpleasantly, true. These kinds of laws are good public
policy.
> > Those
> > > irresponsible to make these kind of decisions often don't bear
the
> > burden of their
> > > foolishness. Personally, I'm glad there are non-smoker rates
for
> > life insurance.
> > > Yes, insurance is designed to spread risk over the population of
> > policyholders.
> > > But should the careful be forced to subsidize the careless?
> >
> > Half of all serious head injuries each year come from falls in the home, generally by senior
> > citizens trying to take a shower.
Perhaps we
> > ought to pass a law saying that senior citizens can only shoewr in
the
> > presence of a EMT?
> >
> > Yearly there are some 50,000 serious head injuries in the USA. Of
that
> > bicycles cause about 400 and most of them are in car collisions.
Why
> > is this discussion being held?
>
> What is your definition of "serious" head injury? 400 sounds
awfully
> low. I won't argue about the number of people slipping in the
shower. I
> think the point though, is preventable injury, using measures most
would
> consider reasonable. I suffered a head injury during a race while wearing a helmet.
It is
> clear to me the helmet didn't make much of a difference in my fall,
since
> I fell on my face (not to mention that the helmet came off in the
fall).
> You seem to acknowledge that helmets do help with "minor" head
injuries.
> By this I assume you mean trips to the ER, perhaps overnight
hospital
> admissions for concussion?
>
> Steve
>
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://www.dentaltwins.com

 

[Suz]

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

> >
> > Dr. says: Doctor Jean-Jacques Menuet claimed that wearing a helmet would almost certainly have
> > saved Kivilev's life. "The injury Andrei sustained to his skull is located at a point that
> > would have been protected by a helmet," said Meunet.
>
>
> Just how does a helmet protect from a fracture at the "base" of the skull? Dave
>
>
Last I checked, a helmet covers the base of the skull.

 

[Khing Dheano]

All of this arguing, physics, ethics, whatever... If Kivilev could be given the chance at a "do
over", I'd bet the house that he'd choose to have on a helmet. I am all for freedom of choice. If
you want to remove yourself from the gene pool, I'm happy for you. But here is my thought process
before I get on the bike (and I hate to wear a helmet): If I knew I was going to go down on this
ride, would I put on the lid? The answer is always Yes. So that's what I do.

"Mark VandenBerghe" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> With statistics like that, I don't want to be your friend.
>
> Mark VandenBerghe
>
>
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Crystal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> > > Most head traumas from a crash have little to do with the wearing of a
>> > helmet. It has more to do
>> > > with the brain banging around inside your head, helmets do not stop
> that
>> > from happening.
>> > > Dave
>> >
>> > However... the helmet will "cushion" the blow the brain....
>> >
>> > Crystal
>>
>> Not that I want to get into the great helmet debate, but I have had 3
> friends die from head injuries
>> sustained WHILE wearing a helmet. None had any skull fractures. One died
> in a fall from a motorcycle
>> in soft dirt at about 20mph with a motorcycle helmet which offers far more
> protection than a bike
>> helmet. If you think that a bike helmet "cushions" the blow, take yours
> off and hit yourself in the
>> head with it. The styrofoam in helmets is fairly hard, the amount of force
> to take a mass the size
>> of your head and make an indentation in the foam before it breaks (crumple
> zone effect) is far
>> greater than the force it takes to slam the brain into walls of the skull
> and cause fatal injury.
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>

 

[Suz]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:J%[email protected]...
> There are between 400 and 500 fatal head injuries to bicycle users each year and another 2500 or
> so serious head injuries. Almost all of the "serious head injuries" resolve to normal or near
> normal in the victim. There is about 1 bicyclist killed racing about once every couple of years or
> so in the USA. Bicycle racing is all hell and gone safer that just about anything else you can do
> including laying in your bed (a significant number of head injury deaths occur from people rolling
> out of a tall bed and hitting their heads on the end tables.)
>
This is laughable, there is no logic whatsoever in your comparison; almost 100% of the population
sleep in a bed 7 times a week. What is the percentage of the population that currently races their
bikes even 1 time per week? A more logical statistic would be to compare how many bike racers have
injured their heads lying in bed vs. crashing their bike in a race. But then of course you would
have to multiply the bike crashing number by 7 or more, as few (amateur) racers race more than once
a week on average (52 times a year). I know of 1 (former) bike racer who had SEVERE head injuries
when he was hit by a car riding to his neighbor's house. No, he wasn't wearing a hemet. I also
personally know at least 10 more racers that have severely damaged their helmets in a crash. I know
of none that have severely injured their heads falling out of bed. That was REALLY weak, Tom

>
> Bicylcing is SAFE SAFE SAFE.

Bike RACING is really not THAT safe. It's a risk we choose to take because we love the sport. But
why not lessen that risk a little bit, if you have such an easy and reasonable means of doing it.
(Please don't quote the wearing a helmet in the shower thing, that's not logical either). A helmet
doesn't take the place of skillful and smart riding, and no one here has said it does. I just don't
understand why you cling so desperately to this notion of yours. But hey, that's your "freedom of
choice". Enjoy.

>
> "Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > > "Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Café de Colombia wrote:
> > > > > That money ends up coming from tax dollars, insurance premium
> > > pools, and
> > > > > federal grants - because of this, the government has a right
> to
> > > act paternally
> > > > > and your argument that the issue is nothing but one of pure
> free
> > > choice simply
> > > > > does not hold water.
> > > >
> > > > Unpleasantly, true. These kinds of laws are good public
> policy.
> > > Those
> > > > irresponsible to make these kind of decisions often don't bear
> the
> > > burden of their
> > > > foolishness. Personally, I'm glad there are non-smoker rates
> for
> > > life insurance.
> > > > Yes, insurance is designed to spread risk over the population of
> > > policyholders.
> > > > But should the careful be forced to subsidize the careless?
> > >
> > > Half of all serious head injuries each year come from falls in the home, generally by senior
> > > citizens trying to take a shower.
> Perhaps we
> > > ought to pass a law saying that senior citizens can only shoewr in
> the
> > > presence of a EMT?
> > >
> > > Yearly there are some 50,000 serious head injuries in the USA. Of
> that
> > > bicycles cause about 400 and most of them are in car collisions.
> Why
> > > is this discussion being held?
> >
> > What is your definition of "serious" head injury? 400 sounds
> awfully
> > low. I won't argue about the number of people slipping in the
> shower. I
> > think the point though, is preventable injury, using measures most
> would
> > consider reasonable. I suffered a head injury during a race while wearing a helmet.
> It is
> > clear to me the helmet didn't make much of a difference in my fall,
> since
> > I fell on my face (not to mention that the helmet came off in the
> fall).
> > You seem to acknowledge that helmets do help with "minor" head
> injuries.
> > By this I assume you mean trips to the ER, perhaps overnight
> hospital
> > admissions for concussion?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://www.dentaltwins.com
> >
> >
>

 

[Suz]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Café de Colombia" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> The last five serious head injuries in the SanbFrancisco bay area ALL were wearing helmets. >

Lucky for them; they may be dead otherwise.

>
> Too bad that a car with seat belts and air bags still has about twice as many serious head
> injuries as a bicyle rider. And it's also too bad that those head injuries would be almost totally
> prevented were the occupants of cars to wear simple bicycle helmets. Oh, but that is rediculous
> isn't it? Yet it is only smart to wear a helmet on a bike for half the danger.
>
There you go using fuzzy logic again. I'm not even sure what you are attempting to say; cars don't
have head injuries. But really, if you want people to take you seriously, you need to at least
compare apples to apples.

I'm really sure that we should concentrate on the dozen or so serious
> brain injuries yearly in world wide bicycle racing instead of the 25,000 similar injuries in auto
> use just in the USA each year.
>
Again, fuzzy logic. Oh, never mind, it's not worth my time, like talking to a brick wall. I give up,
and am going to bed.

 

[Russ Baxter]

A two-time winner of the Tour an idiot? You certainly have high standards. I guess Roche is a
total moron.

"Crystal" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "OMC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I guess Fignon knows
> > a lot more about head trama than emergency doctors do.
> >
> > OMC
>
> Fignon is also the idiot who lost the Tour by 8 seconds to Lemond. Wind tunnel test later
> showed that had he worn a helmet (and tucked in that dumb ass ponytail) he would have actually
> won the Tour!
>
> Crystal

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

anti-helmet position, which has some merit.

Some merit? Bicycle racers in UCI racers have to follow gobs of rules and reguslations as it
is...one more concerning safety wouldn't hurt any of these darlin's..

Wearing a helmet wouldn't 'hurt' anybody, may help..

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Tom Kunich]

Yes, in some cases, but it doesn't PROTECT you from that sort of fracture because it is caused by
over-rotation where the base of the skull hits the attackment point of the backbone.

I'd much rather see you riding more alertly than wearing a helmet.

"Suz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bVcca.5753$%[email protected]...
>
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "OMC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > >

> > >
> > > Dr. says: Doctor Jean-Jacques Menuet claimed that wearing a helmet would almost certainly have
> > > saved Kivilev's life. "The injury Andrei sustained to his skull is located at a point
that
> > > would have been protected by a helmet," said Meunet.
> >
> >
> > Just how does a helmet protect from a fracture at the "base" of
the skull?
> > Dave
> >
> >
> Last I checked, a helmet covers the base of the skull.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Suz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Café de Colombia" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > The last five serious head injuries in the SanbFrancisco bay area
ALL
> > were wearing helmets. >
>
> Lucky for them; they may be dead otherwise.

Of the last four bicycle deaths in the bay area that I've investigated three were wearing helmets.
Oh, yeah, there's that Catch 22 - if they were wearing helmets and they were killed it means that
nothing would have helped. It NEVER means that the helmets didn't have any effect.

> > Too bad that a car with seat belts and air bags still has about
twice
> > as many serious head injuries as a bicyle rider. And it's also too
bad
> > that those head injuries would be almost totally prevented were
the
> > occupants of cars to wear simple bicycle helmets. Oh, but that is rediculous isn't it? Yet it is
> > only smart to wear a helmet on a
bike
> > for half the danger.
> >
> There you go using fuzzy logic again. I'm not even sure what you
are
> attempting to say; cars don't have head injuries. But really, if
you want
> people to take you seriously, you need to at least compare apples to
apples.

I know this is hard for you to concentrate on Suz, but you can do it. Bicycle racers are all hell
and gone safer than recreational bicyclists because recreational bicyclists have cars to contend
with. Even at that, recreational bicyclists are about twice as safe STATISTICALLY as occupants of
motor vehicles for the same sorts of head injuries.

Somehow it makes all kinds of sense for you to wear a helmet while riding a bike but none at
all while driving a car. The reason for this is simple - you've been propagandized by the
helmet industry.

 

[Tom Kunich]

Suz, if I understand you correctly you are arguing that bicycling MUST be more dangeous than sleep
in your own bed becase you do it more often.

I guess I have to ask you why you'd think it a good idea to make all bicycle racers everywhere wear
a helmet all the time in order to POSSIBLY reduce the very occasional bicycle racing death?

If you start talking statistical probabilities there is no comparison. You will be run over by a car
long before you'd suffer a fatal accident in a bicycle race.

"Suz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:J%[email protected]...
> > There are between 400 and 500 fatal head injuries to bicycle users each year and another 2500 or
> > so serious head injuries. Almost all
of
> > the "serious head injuries" resolve to normal or near normal in
the
> > victim. There is about 1 bicyclist killed racing about once every couple of years or so in the
> > USA. Bicycle racing is all hell and
gone
> > safer that just about anything else you can do including laying in your bed (a significant
> > number of head injury deaths occur from
people
> > rolling out of a tall bed and hitting their heads on the end
tables.)
> >
> This is laughable, there is no logic whatsoever in your comparison;
almost
> 100% of the population sleep in a bed 7 times a week. What is the percentage of the population
> that currently races their bikes even 1
time
> per week? A more logical statistic would be to compare how many
bike racers
> have injured their heads lying in bed vs. crashing their bike in a
race.
> But then of course you would have to multiply the bike crashing
number by 7
> or more, as few (amateur) racers race more than once a week on
average (52
> times a year). I know of 1 (former) bike racer who had SEVERE head
injuries
> when he was hit by a car riding to his neighbor's house. No, he
wasn't
> wearing a hemet. I also personally know at least 10 more racers
that have
> severely damaged their helmets in a crash. I know of none that have severely injured their heads
> falling out of bed. That was REALLY
weak, Tom
>
> >
> > Bicylcing is SAFE SAFE SAFE.
>
> Bike RACING is really not THAT safe. It's a risk we choose to take
because
> we love the sport. But why not lessen that risk a little bit, if
you have
> such an easy and reasonable means of doing it. (Please don't quote
the
> wearing a helmet in the shower thing, that's not logical either). A
helmet
> doesn't take the place of skillful and smart riding, and no one here
has
> said it does. I just don't understand why you cling so desperately
to this
> notion of yours. But hey, that's your "freedom of choice". Enjoy.
>
>
> >
> > "Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email protected]> wrote
in
> > > > message news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Café de Colombia wrote:
> > > > > > That money ends up coming from tax dollars, insurance
premium
> > > > pools, and
> > > > > > federal grants - because of this, the government has a
right
> > to
> > > > act paternally
> > > > > > and your argument that the issue is nothing but one of
pure
> > free
> > > > choice simply
> > > > > > does not hold water.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unpleasantly, true. These kinds of laws are good public
> > policy.
> > > > Those
> > > > > irresponsible to make these kind of decisions often don't
bear
> > the
> > > > burden of their
> > > > > foolishness. Personally, I'm glad there are non-smoker
rates
> > for
> > > > life insurance.
> > > > > Yes, insurance is designed to spread risk over the
population of
> > > > policyholders.
> > > > > But should the careful be forced to subsidize the careless?
> > > >
> > > > Half of all serious head injuries each year come from falls in
the
> > > > home, generally by senior citizens trying to take a shower.
> > Perhaps we
> > > > ought to pass a law saying that senior citizens can only
shoewr in
> > the
> > > > presence of a EMT?
> > > >
> > > > Yearly there are some 50,000 serious head injuries in the USA.
Of
> > that
> > > > bicycles cause about 400 and most of them are in car
collisions.
> > Why
> > > > is this discussion being held?
> > >
> > > What is your definition of "serious" head injury? 400
sounds
> > awfully
> > > low. I won't argue about the number of people slipping in the
> > shower. I
> > > think the point though, is preventable injury, using measures
most
> > would
> > > consider reasonable. I suffered a head injury during a race while wearing a
helmet.
> > It is
> > > clear to me the helmet didn't make much of a difference in my
fall,
> > since
> > > I fell on my face (not to mention that the helmet came off in
the
> > fall).
> > > You seem to acknowledge that helmets do help with "minor" head
> > injuries.
> > > By this I assume you mean trips to the ER, perhaps overnight
> > hospital
> > > admissions for concussion?
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://www.dentaltwins.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Russ Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A two-time winner of the Tour an idiot? You certainly have high standards. I guess Roche is a
> total moron.

You should know that an idiot is anyone that doesn't agree with you. Albert Einstein would
be discribed as an idiot by many of these people since he was photographed riding a bike
without a helmet.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Khing Dheano" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All of this arguing, physics, ethics, whatever... If Kivilev could
be
> given the chance at a "do over", I'd bet the house that he'd choose
to
> have on a helmet.

I'm sure he would. And then if he was killed in exactly the same manner everyone would say, "Well,
nothing could have saved him." Now they tell us that he wouldn't even have road rash if he'd have
been wearing a helmet.

 

[Tom Kunich]

Well, why don't we pass a few rules and regulations concerning your shop then? They couldn't hurt
anything because you have to follow all sorts of regulations now. They might even help.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

merely the
> anti-helmet position, which has some merit.
>
> Some merit? Bicycle racers in UCI racers have to follow gobs of
rules and
> reguslations as it is...one more concerning safety wouldn't hurt any
of these
> darlin's..
>
> Wearing a helmet wouldn't 'hurt' anybody, may help..
>
>
> Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Gary German]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Khing Dheano" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > All of this arguing, physics, ethics, whatever... If Kivilev could
> be
> > given the chance at a "do over", I'd bet the house that he'd choose
> to
> > have on a helmet.
>
> I'm sure he would. And then if he was killed in exactly the same manner everyone would say, "Well,
> nothing could have saved him." Now they tell us that he wouldn't even have road rash if he'd have
> been wearing a helmet.
>

And, if he DID survive the crash with a helmet, you would still be in here saying the helmet had
nothing to do with his survival.

BTW, Tom, could you provide a link to any post in this thread that says "he wouldn't even have road
rash if he'd been wearing a helmet"? I can't seem to find any with that much exaggeration (except,
of course, for yours).

 

[Kaiser]

One would think the UCI (the UCI being a collection of team owners) would want the helmet rule,
simply for the added real estate on which they could slap logos. More real estate means more
sponsorship opps, which means more $.

I can guarantee you that if I were the chief marketing officer for a company sponsoring a team ride,
I'd be insisting that my logo appear on the helmets of all the riders.

-k

[email protected] (OMC) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> His death prompted his team doctor to call for the wearing of helmets to become law - as it
> currently is in Belgium.
>
> Doctor Jean-Jacques Menuet claimed that wearing a helmet would almost certainly have saved
> Kivilev's life.
>
> "The injury Andrei sustained to his skull is located at a point that would have been protected by
> a helmet," said Meunet, who called for the authorities to bring in stiffer measures.
>
> "Riders are free to wear a helmet or not, even though as doctors we would all like to see it
> become obligatory."
>
> However Fignon defended riders' rights not to wear helmets.
>
> "We can't blame anything except for bad luck," said Fignon, a former cycling prodigy who twice won
> the Tour de France. Fignon was among the leaders of a protest against the obligatory wearing of
> helmets at the Paris-Nice in 1991.
>
> He added: "If you land on your forehead, a helmet is still not going to protect you. It doesn't
> change a thing."
>
> This is exactly the attitude that keeps the UCI from making changes and keeping the riders safe.
> The never is any 100% guarantee that a helmet will save your life, but it's stupid not to take
> advantage of technology to increase your chances of survival. I guess Fignon knows a lot more
> about head trama than emergency doctors do.
>
> OMC