Helmet Wankers

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Tom Kunich, Feb 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tom Keats wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, David Reuteler
    > <[email protected]> writes:
    >> Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> <M-x spook>
    >>
    >> egads, i forgot how inspired (bloated?) emacs can be. lest anyone think he's joking .. he's not.
    >
    > It does everything except peel your vegetables ;-)

    And that's just until someone makes a carrot peeler with a serial port.

    It can brew you a cup of coffee, provided you have a RFC2324-compliant coffee maker:

    http://www.chez.com/emarsden/downloads/coffee.el

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --
    Wolfgang Pauli
     


  2. Tom Keats wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, "Jeff" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> Which part of Canada has a mandatory foam hat law?
    >
    > Ontario's MHL appears to be the oldest in the country.
    >
    > Province/Territory: British Columbia age group: all fine: $100

    ... but ours is the nastiest!

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --
    Wolfgang Pauli
     
  3. David Reuteler wrote:

    > Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> It can brew you a cup of coffee, provided you have a RFC2324-compliant coffee maker:
    >>
    >> http://www.chez.com/emarsden/downloads/coffee.el
    >
    > oh, man. i'm a vi boy owing mainly to the fact that i started out as a sysadmin but i've always
    > had a morbid fascination with bloated, errr, feature-rich software and once gave emacs a whirl ...
    > i think i lasted a few months before i went back to vi & that because i'd drifted towards using
    > emacs in vi emulation mode (which wasn't half bad, actually).

    To be fair, you don't have to load libraries like "coffee.el" if you don't want to (and if you *do*
    want to, you have to download it first, unlike things like Tetris and the psychiatrist that are
    installed by default...).

    I also have heard that vi variants like gvim are getting to be as big these days.

    Nothin' against vi (but PICO sucks rocks),

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --
    Wolfgang Pauli
     
  4. Tom Keats wrote:

    > That $100 fine /is/ pretty draconian. I've never seen any actual enforcement (yet). My next door
    > neighbour tells me he got an officious verbal warning from the cops once, though.
    >
    > Actually, I don't mind too much having to wear the bucket. It's something to stick my glasses &
    > gloves in when I go to the bank.

    I usually don't mind wearing it, but I do mind *having* to wear it.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --
    Wolfgang Pauli
     
  5. Tom Keats wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> I also have heard that vi variants like gvim are getting to be as big these days.
    >
    > vi's a pretty darn good, powerful editor too. I really don't understand these vi vs emacs "tastes
    > great; less filling" religious wars. They're both good.

    I use vi occasionally for very simple changes when I don't have a gnuserver running, since my init
    file is pretty crufty and emacs takes a while to load. I haven't used vi enough to have any strong
    feelings about it one way or another (although I suspect most of the people in the religious wars
    haven't used the "rival" editor much either.)

    >> Nothin' against vi (but PICO sucks rocks),
    >
    > Maybe as pico is to vi, epsilon is to emacs. epsilon is an horrid perversion. ISTR Borland
    > including it in their IDE suite.

    As far as I know, PICO has no more in common with vi than it does with emacs. I used it for a while
    when I was still using pine, where it is the default editor.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --
    Wolfgang Pauli
     
  6. Frkrygow

    Frkrygow Guest

    John Doe wrote:

    > If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it.

    :) The last time I heard someone seriously use that line, it was a
    semi-senile old lady with a missionary complex. Since she was clearly an old fool, I was kind to
    her. I said nothing.

    Since I know nothing about _your_ age, let me ask: Why does that logic apply only the less-than-1%
    of head injury fatalities that are cyclists? Or do you apply it equally to the 50% that are
    motorists, as well as to the other 49% that have nothing to do with cycling?

    --
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
     
  7. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    "Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, John Doe
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it. What value are you
    > >placing on looking cool?
    >
    > And if the cost of saving that one life is two people who died because they were wearing helmets
    > (and wouldn't have done if they weren't), then is it still a good idea to make them mandatory?
    >
    > The point is that we really don't know whether they increase or reduce injury, and the evidence
    > points in both directions. Why do you claim Divine Enlightenment to know what the truth is?
    >
    >
    > Regards, Nick Maclaren.

    Hmm Think I was saying how it is in this country not what I believe is the correct approach. Was not
    expressing an opinion due to the form of debate it takes on with such learned folk as yourself. You
    end up with a tis snot tis snow type of school argument that I am not interested in. I do not have
    the research behind me to make such an informed decision so I am at the mercy of people I have
    intrusted with such. This is one of those debates that cannot be won with anecdotal guessing.

    Once again. I do not have an opinion apart from the fact that I have to trust the opinions of people
    that are given the job of deciding these things based on their careful study. Rightly or wrongly it
    is the best I can hope for. However I will not trust the John Does (like myself) on Usenet to make
    up my mind. I do not have the time to research this to the full extent that it requires for me to
    make my own personal decision as I already have a job that consumes most of my time and my family
    the other.

    This debate comes up every few months and ends up being long heated and full of half truths till it
    dies a natural death of boredom.

    regards Peter
     
  8. Frkrygow

    Frkrygow Guest

    Fred Nieman wrote:

    > If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and take a
    > bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b) a fool.

    I guess skill and appropriate caution aren't part of your equation, eh? If so, then: Damn. My
    experiences of the past four decades must be imaginary.

    > A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and
    > ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did
    > mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle.

    It also meant you've turned into a tiresome, sermonizing meddler. That seems to be a serious side
    effect of crashing while wearing a helmet.

    Look, if you feel you can't cycle without styrofoam, that's your choice. But there's no need to
    adopt a "wiser than thou" attitude about it, and there's certainly no need to be giving sermons
    to others.

    The bulk of available data says that your judgement is in error - that the funny hats don't do
    significant good. Anyone who lectures others without studying the data shouldn't be calling
    _others_ fools!

    Oh, and please stop spreading the false idea that ordinary cycling is unusually dangerous. People
    like you do cycling much more harm than good.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

    ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance FTP
    using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See
    http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----
     
  9. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, John Doe <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > >If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it. What value are you
    > > >placing on looking cool?
    > >
    > > And if the cost of saving that one life is two people who died because they were wearing helmets
    > > (and wouldn't have done if they weren't), then is it still a good idea to make them mandatory?
    > >
    > > The point is that we really don't know whether they increase or reduce injury, and the evidence
    > > points in both directions. Why do you claim Divine Enlightenment to know what the truth is?
    > >
    > >
    > > Regards, Nick Maclaren.
    >
    > Hmm Think I was saying how it is in this country not what I believe is the correct approach. Was
    > not expressing an opinion due to the form of debate it takes on with such learned folk as
    > yourself. You end up with a tis
    snot
    > tis snow type of school argument that I am not interested in. I do not
    have
    > the research behind me to make such an informed decision so I am at the mercy of people I have
    > intrusted with such. This is one of those debates that cannot be won with anecdotal guessing.
    >
    > Once again. I do not have an opinion apart from the fact that I have to trust the opinions of
    > people that are given the job of deciding these
    things
    > based on their careful study. Rightly or wrongly it is the best I can
    hope
    > for. However I will not trust the John Does (like myself) on Usenet to
    make
    > up my mind. I do not have the time to research this to the full extent
    that
    > it requires for me to make my own personal decision as I already have a
    job
    > that consumes most of my time and my family the other.
    >
    > This debate comes up every few months and ends up being long heated and
    full
    > of half truths till it dies a natural death of boredom.

    I would agree with you save the fact that they obvoiusly didn't study the available data and
    strangely enough chose bicyclists as their targets when they could have gotten a four fold
    improvement (if they believe helmets work) by making them mandatory for those walking near traffic.

    Government by the Nanny and for the Nanny isn't going to work for anyone but Nanny.
     
  10. Johnb

    Johnb Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:26:00 GMT, "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it. What value are you
    > >placing on looking cool?
    >
    > Stop driving NOW! Car drivers kill tens of thousands every year in the US ALONE! If even one life
    > can be saved (and actually it'll bve tens of thousands) surely it's worth it.

    Extreme it may seem, but this *is* one reason why i do not drive. I do not wish to be part of that
    culture that kills and injures so many.

    If you drive you contribute towards the problems that motoring inflicts on society.

    John B
     
  11. In article <[email protected]>,
    "John Doe" <[email protected]> writes:
    |>
    |> Hmm Think I was saying how it is in this country not what I believe is the correct approach. Was
    |> not expressing an opinion due to the form of debate it takes on with such learned folk as
    |> yourself. You end up with a tis snot tis snow type of school argument that I am not interested
    |> in. I do not have the research behind me to make such an informed decision so I am at the mercy
    |> of people I have intrusted with such. This is one of those debates that cannot be won with
    |> anecdotal guessing.
    |>
    |> Once again. I do not have an opinion apart from the fact that I have to trust the opinions of
    |> people that are given the job of deciding these things based on their careful study. Rightly or
    |> wrongly it is the best I can hope for. However I will not trust the John Does (like myself) on
    |> Usenet to make up my mind. I do not have the time to research this to the full extent that it
    |> requires for me to make my own personal decision as I already have a job that consumes most of my
    |> time and my family the other.
    |>
    |> This debate comes up every few months and ends up being long heated and full of half truths till
    |> it dies a natural death of boredom.

    Correct. But let me introduce myself. While I am very rusty, I am a statistician by training and was
    once fairly good. Again, while I haven't looked at ALL of the evidence, I did spend some time
    looking at many of the references quoted by the pro-helmet brigade, and found that all except a
    couple were complete nonsense. Their data may have been correct, but the analysis was so obviously
    incorrect that their conclusions were often the OPPOSITE of what should have been derived from the
    data. The couple that weren't complete nonsense were inconclusive, and counterbalanced by equivalent
    research that indicated that bicycle helmets increased the risk of brain damage.

    There MAY be some new data, but I doubt it. The executive summary is this:

    Helmets almost certainly reduce trivial head injuries in all classes of cyclist - i.e. mere
    bruises, cuts and so on. Yes, some of the cuts may have needed hospital treatment, but they are
    STILL trivial.

    Helmets almost certainly make a negligible difference to the incidence of brain damage following
    an accident for normal cyclists, and the data are not good enough to tell whether the difference
    is positive or negative.

    Helmets probably help with extreme cycling - crashes at speeds above 30 MPH, people who ride
    over broken rock and so on - the evidence is very scanty and hence inconclusive, but is at least
    fairly consistent.

    Mandatory and even semi-mandatory helmet wearing reduces the number of normal cyclists
    significantly, especially those that are using cycling as a form of transport rather than
    recreation. And 'significantly' is of the order of tens of percent.

    The rest is politics, dogma and so on.

    Regards, Nick Maclaren.
     
  12. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    Frank! You've been learning a few good lines to go with the usual facts.

    "frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Fred Nieman wrote:
    >
    > > If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and
    > > take a bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b)
    > > a fool.
    >
    > I guess skill and appropriate caution aren't part of your equation, eh? If so, then: Damn. My
    > experiences of the past four decades must be imaginary.
    >
    > > A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and
    > > ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did
    > > mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle.
    >
    > It also meant you've turned into a tiresome, sermonizing meddler. That seems to be a serious side
    > effect of crashing while wearing a helmet.
    >
    > Look, if you feel you can't cycle without styrofoam, that's your choice. But there's no need to
    > adopt a "wiser than thou" attitude about it, and there's certainly no need to be giving sermons
    > to others.
    >
    > The bulk of available data says that your judgement is in error - that the funny hats don't do
    > significant good. Anyone who lectures others without studying the data shouldn't be calling
    > _others_ fools!
    >
    >
    > Oh, and please stop spreading the false idea that ordinary cycling is unusually dangerous. People
    > like you do cycling much more harm than good.
    >
    > --
    > Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
    >
    > ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance
    > FTP using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See
    > http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----
     
  13. Q.

    Q. Guest

    <snip>
    > > If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and
    > > take a bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b)
    > > a fool.
    >
    > There is no inevitability about it.
    >
    <snip>
    > > A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and
    > > ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did
    > > mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle.
    >
    > Or not. Maybe it was your Mk. 1 Skull which did the job.

    Given the fact that people have been bashing their heads for tens of thousands of years, in
    evolutionary terms, wouldn't that be more like "Skull Version 26.9" ?

    C.Q.C.
     
  14. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

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

    > Helmets almost certainly reduce trivial head injuries in all classes of cyclist - i.e. mere
    > bruises, cuts and so on. Yes, some of the cuts may have needed hospital treatment, but they
    > are STILL trivial.
    >
    > Helmets almost certainly make a negligible difference to the incidence of brain damage
    > following an accident for normal cyclists, and the data are not good enough to tell whether
    > the difference is positive or negative.
    >
    > Helmets probably help with extreme cycling - crashes at speeds above 30 MPH, people who ride
    > over broken rock and so on - the evidence is very scanty and hence inconclusive, but is at
    > least fairly consistent.
    >
    > Mandatory and even semi-mandatory helmet wearing reduces the number of normal cyclists
    > significantly, especially those that are using cycling as a form of transport rather than
    > recreation. And 'significantly' is of the order of tens of percent.
    >
    > The rest is politics, dogma and so on.

    On the face of it it's hard to add anything to that, other than that I believe the evidence
    indicates that cyclists wearing helmets have a greater propensity to risk-taking (risk
    compensation).

    The helmet issue also affects the perception of the risk of cycling by drivers, such that they are
    likely to attribute the death of a cyclist wrongly as the consequence of cycling being a dangerous
    activity, when the reality is that it's driving that's dangerous. What a horrible sentence. I think
    you know what I mean, though.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
     
  15. Drs

    Drs Guest

    S. Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message
    [email protected]
    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> Amazingly, when the UK introduced sealt belt legislation - driver fatalities stayed the same! But
    >> there was a substantial rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities.
    >
    > Can you cite the data for this declaration? I'd be interested to see this.

    The laws of physics are the same in the UK as they are here and I simply don't believe a word of it.

    BTW, when Victoria first introduced compulsory seatbelt usage not only did the number of fatalities
    drop significantly but the number of spinal injuries dropped 75% in the first year.

    --

    T: Top-posters.
    U: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  16. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

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

    > > Amazingly, when the UK introduced sealt belt legislation - driver fatalities stayed the same!
    > > But there was a substantial rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities.

    > Can you cite the data for this declaration? I'd be interested to see
    this.

    The data came from RAGB, but if you want the full picture I recomend chapter 4 of Death on the
    Streets by Bob Davis, which goes into some detail. It also includes the interesting story of the
    Isles Report, prepared by the DoT, which showed that mandatory belt laws had no significant effect
    in any European country. It was buried in the run-up to legislation.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
     
  17. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Given the fact that people have been bashing their heads for tens of thousands of years, in
    > evolutionary terms, wouldn't that be more like
    "Skull
    > Version 26.9" ?

    Heh! You may have a point. But doesn't evolution count as a field revision?

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
     
  18. Q.

    Q. Guest

    "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote

    <snip>
    > 31337 d00d ..
    >
    > you forgot to mention the anarchist's cookbook, tho nitrate rates.

    That book isn't all it's cracked up to be ... actually, it's about as lame as "The Happy Hacker".
    Besides, the good ol' US Army publications are way better. I would suggest my personal favorite
    "SILENCERS: Principals and Evaluations", Report R-1896, AMCMS Code 5542.12.46801.02. For those
    interested, the "keywords" taken from the Document Control Data R&D sheet are: Silencers, Silenced
    Weapons, Small Arms Noise, Pressure-Time Sound Records, Scope Traces, Noise Sources, Sound Pressure
    Levels, Noise Attenuation. (I had no idea they used keywords in 1968.)

    For 2 points ... what famous phreak legally changed his name to "Joybubbles"?

    3y3 0\/\/nz u! (Gosh, I love derailing a troll thread!)

    C.Q.C.
     
  19. Q.

    Q. Guest

    "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote

    <snip>
    > >> Province/Territory: British Columbia age group: all fine: $100
    > >
    > > ... but ours is the nastiest!
    >
    > That $100 fine /is/ pretty draconian. I've never seen any actual enforcement (yet). My next door
    > neighbour tells me he got an officious verbal warning from the cops once, though.

    "I do have to fine you. That will be a thousand dollars Canadian, or 10 American dollars if
    you prefer."

    As much as I dislike Michael Moore I think Canadian Bacon is a great movie ... well, maybe not great
    but it has it's moments.

    "Think of your children pledging allegiance to the maple leaf. Mayonnaise on everything. Winter 11
    months of the year. Anne Murray - all day, every day."

    C.Q.C.
     
  20. Marty

    Marty Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >
    > Let's be sure to note that I for one have been at the scene of several of what looked to be rather
    > minor car racing accidents in which the occupant/driver died despite seat belts, helmets and
    > whatever else.

    Just as well they weren't serious accidents.

    Marty
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...