Helmet Wankers

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. In <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Tom Keats) opined:

    > It does everything except peel your vegetables ;-)

    Ooh, wait! I know this one...

    Something about the wheelchair, right?

    --
    [email protected] | depending, of course, | REPLACE example WITH Dave Salovesh | on your
    perspective | mindspring TO EMAIL ME (After more than a decade on USENET , it's finally come
    to this ^^^)
     


  2. In rec.bicycles.misc Q. <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
    : "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." - Aleister Crowley

    lol. that was also on the famous LoD shirt along with "Hacking for Jesus."
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  3. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 01:07:47 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
    wrote:
    >Hugh Mahon's ee is a cute little editor.

    I like e3 better: :In Linux the e3 uncompressed executable's size is at 12000 byte
    : e3 is quite independent of libc

    While you can, of course, change the keymaps and interface on it with config files, IIRC, it's
    default is Wordstar; that's very comfortable for me. I use joe in Wordstar mode when it's around.

    I don't mind vi, but I do like e3 and joe better.

    >DOS 5's DOSShell had this great little read-only file viewer that not many people knew about.
    >Options to display binary files in literal ascii or hex. Sometimes one could discern the secret
    >install key in certain software pkgs with it.

    I used that!

    >It was dropped from DOS 6 for some reason.

    Dosshell was great. I think they dropped it because it could be used to make DOS too friendly, so
    people wouldn't want windows. Dosshell was like a poor-man's Windows; it used a mouse, had something
    like a desktop where you could put icons (I think I remember this, anyway, but I can't remember how
    one was to make it exist), had file associations (again, IIRC), and most importantly, task
    switching!

    I set up many people with dosshell environments that enabled them to use a computer that they
    otherwise couldn't have mastered.

    How about 4dos? It was like having bash for people who never heard of unix...

    I can still hear that pile of full height 5.25" 327mb SCSI drives, outside the case, a stray power
    supply with enough splitters to run them, a long internal scsi ribbon cable running out the back of
    the case to them, loud, noisy, heating up my room...I got them at a computer show; they were in an
    external RAID case, but one was broken, and the whole thing did not function as a unit, so it was
    nearly free.

    All hooked up, IIRC, to a 286. With RAM in IC form, stuck in IC sockets the way a 486 would have
    cache (for that matter, probably about as much RAM as a 486 would have cache...).

    I can't imagine how I filled those drives. I had a cd-rom, and installed Slackware on one, but
    didn't learn how to use it till a couple years later.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  4. Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:
    : 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.

    tom needs a trip in the way-back machine. to a time before micro$oft 0wned
    u .. to the late 80s and early 90s.

    well, basically .. there wasn't microsoft to kick around. so battles were picked with .. umm, more
    creativity (desperation). well, it's ironic that the complaint was bloated size because in
    retrospect .. well, the fact is it did run on a 4MB Sun 3/50 and run pretty well.

    it was probably mostly a sysadmin vs developer thing. admins couldn't use emacs 'cause in the day it
    was rarely on new installs or production machines and developers liked it 'cause it was made for
    them and almost an IDE and had syntax highlighting, cvs stuff, etc and so the userbase ended up
    being pretty clearly drawn on those lines. those two groups were destined to fight about something,
    anything (i say this having been on both sides).

    i've never known anyone to actually get that crazed about this particuliar "debate" tho. well, not
    like how much the new editors ones suck.

    nano. dear god. a pico clone! 3rd generation syndrome.

    still, tho, linux's largest contribution to UNIX has been coloured ls.
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  5. Q.

    Q. Guest

    <snip>
    > Personally, I'd change that to "You can do anything you want to yourself provided that no material
    > harm comes to anyone else without their consent."

    The first time I read that philosophy, was in the Satanic Bible (c: Surprisingly good book. You
    should read it.

    "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." - Aleister Crowley

    C.Q.C.
     
  6. Johnb

    Johnb Guest

    Tom Keats wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > >> 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.
    > >
    > > I think it's sad that this seems like an extreme view.
    >
    > Maybe the real extremeness is the pressure put on non-drivers to become drivers.

    One of the worst being the assumption one has a driving licence for ID purposes.

    John B
     
  7. Johnb

    Johnb Guest

    Tom Keats wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > >> 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.
    > >
    > > I think it's sad that this seems like an extreme view.
    >
    > Maybe the real extremeness is the pressure put on non-drivers to become drivers.

    One of the worst being the assumption one has a driving licence for ID purposes.

    John B
     
  8. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> writes:

    > 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.

    The scene (in 'Canadian Bacon') with the truck getting pulled over because the graffiti on its sides
    wasn't bilingual was amusing, although perhaps too reminiscent of another scene similarly involving
    graffiti in 'The Life of Brian'.

    > "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."

    A couple of Canadian films I'd like to check out are Clement Virgo's 'Rude' and Anne Wheeler's 'The
    Edge of Madness'.

    Anne Wheeler's 'Better Than Chocolate' might be something to watch with the girlfriend. Maybe double-
    feature it with Lynn Stopkewich's 'Kissed'.

    Canadian film can be pretty good.

    cheers, Tom

    --
    -- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
    [point] bc [point] ca
     
  9. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:33:10 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Anyways, the US Government needs to start hiring some of these guys and give them free reign to
    >hack away into other governments computers ... like Canadia.

    Let them try to hack into the US govt's computers to improve security. At least that way they're on
    the inside pissing out.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  10. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
    >
    > Guy
    > ===
    > May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    > http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

    WARNING: SATIRE APPROACHING.

    You are dead right. Couldnt agree more. Cars are a plague on our society. Wouldnt need to wear a
    helmet on my bike if it were not for that filth. Especially those damn tanks that seem to be popular
    now. Why is that? Is it because they think their ever growing arses look big in a small car? Do
    people go into a car yard now and say "This car makes my arse look too big. You got anything in a 3
    ton range?" Where will it stop. Will in 10 years people want to drive 4-5T trucks to keep that one
    step ahead for overkill on a passenger vehicle

    pete.
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 08:29:28 +0000, JohnB <[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.

    Hard to disagree. We still have one car between us, but I try not to use it.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  12. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

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

    Hi, totally agree. The big problem with these studies is the interpretation of the data. The reason
    we get these conflicting studies is that it is down to individual human interpretation. Sometimes
    the study is also funded by a specific interest group (helmet manufacturer) that can also have an
    effect (even if the scientists say they impartial funding can have a sub conscious effect).

    The only twe reasons that I have seen that they increase brain damage is that they increase the
    incidence by the way riders ride (please correct me here if there are others). They think they are
    safe because they strap some egg shells to their head so ride with less caution. Studies have also
    shown since the advent of air bags, people tend to tail gate more often. (however I believe that it
    cannot be all down to that. People are just less patient and more aggressive these days. Cars per
    capita in this country has exploded in the last 30 years and traffic is worse increasing peoples
    tension. Lots of other reasons that could explain this also). The second reason due to the decrease
    in cycling popularity. Now anecdotally I have noticed far less children riding on the roads compared
    to when I was young and doing it. That was the only way we got around. Now we have mum driving us
    everywhere via a 3T all terain vehicle. The majority of riders you see seen now are enthusiasts that
    are either training, social or transport.

    The first reason is individual. If you still ride as carefully with and without then you may have
    increased your level of protection. The second reason is out of your control.

    <snip>
    > 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.

    Yes. This is a main reason I have heard against the arguement. Decreases the incidence of cyclists
    so much that drivers have lost the ability to see them or the skills to pass safely. Their could be
    other reasons why mothers have stopped their children and adults have stopped riding. Motor vehicles
    per capita have boomed in the last 30 years and would also explain the booming level of obesity in
    this country. Road construction has not kept pace and traffic is a lot more aggressive and abundant.
    Once again it is intrepretation of the data. What has happened in countries like the US where there
    is no compulsory rules - and a similar obesity trend. Is Cycling as popular per capita as it was 30
    years ago?

    BTW: When they introduced compulsory helmet wearing for motor cyclists did the participation rate
    drop? Although the reason that people are much more aggressive on the road could explain the
    decrease in popularity.

    regards pete
     
  13. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >

    > 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.
    >

    Thats for sure. One of the biggest issues is that people wrongly believe that it is a dangerous
    activity. I am sure sitting on my arse and eating potato chips, drinking beer, watching TV all day
    is a lot more dangerous. I also swim in the sea for at least 6-10km's per week. I am sure that is
    more dangerous than cycling.
     
  14. Frkrygow

    Frkrygow Guest

    John Doe wrote:

    > BTW: When they introduced compulsory helmet wearing for motor cyclists did the participation rate
    > drop? Although the reason that people are much more aggressive on the road could explain the
    > decrease in popularity.

    "Similarly, you find a lower density of bikers in helmet-law states. For many bikers, motorcycling
    with a helmet is like surfing without an ocean. Compare Florida, a helmet state, with Iowa, a no-
    helmet state. Florida has a beautiful, year-round riding season. Iowa has a long, brutal winter. Yet
    Iowa has more than three times the number of registered motorcycles per hundred population as
    Florida. In California, a onetime biker paradise, registrations dropped by 22 %(138,000 fewer bikes)
    in the first four years after its legislature passed a helmet law. Overall, states with no helmet
    laws had 2.6 motorcycle registrations per 100 population compared to 1.3 in helmet-law states. In
    other words, non-helmet states have twice as many bikers. "

    From http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html

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

    ------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------- For a quality mail server, try
    SurgeMail, easy to install, fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard PC
    running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best! ---- See
    http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----
     
  15. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > The laws of physics are the same in the UK as they are here and I simply don't believe a word
    > > of it.
    >
    >
    > Yes, always better to go with blind faith than facts.
    >
    > Try Googling for "risk compensation" some time. Read the study of German taxi drivers and ABS
    > brakes, it's very revealing. There's also a rising rate of front passenger deaths in the UK at
    > present, linked with the increased use of cars fitted with drivers' airbags by young male drivers.
    >
    > Of course, nobody believes in risk compensation. That's why it happens.
    >
    > --
    > Guy
    > ===

    Seems to me that those sort of figures are linked to perceived risk (distinct from "actual risk").
    Give someone ABS brakes and their perception of the risk of, say, tailgating is reduced, so the
    perceived safe distance between vehices is reduced. The actual safe distance is not reduced as much
    as the perceived safe distance and CRUNCH!

    I heard/read/saw somewhere (can't cite... don't remember where I picked it up and can't be bothered
    looking!) someone say that the best way to reduce vehicle impacts would be to mount a 6" dagger
    pointing to the driver's chest from the steering wheel. That'll give an increased risk perception to
    the driver!

    Yes, the laws of physics are the same, but are there laws covering personal tolerance of risk and
    individual risk perception in different cultures? It seems to me that the chief cause of road
    fatalities is someone driving like a prat (i.e. in such a way that the actual risk of crashing is
    unacceptably high). That is, behaviour and cultural modification will have a far greater effect of
    bringing down the incidence of fatalities than any amount of airbags, seatbelts, helmets, etc. Those
    protective devices merely guard (to varying degrees of success) against high-risk behaviours.

    While I'm rambling, it's interesting to note the comments about how much impact a helmet doesn't
    protect you from. It seems to me that impacts often follow a period of decelleration (the squeal of
    brakes, the time flying over the bars, etc.) so the actual impact is at a lower speed than the
    travelling speed instantaneously before the impact. So, if I'm cycling at 25km/hr, and a car pulls
    out on me, I'll hit the brakes (if I had time... this isn't an exact science so, unlike others, I'm
    not pretending it is) and possibly decelerate to 10km/hr by the time I actually hit the car. I'm
    below the 12 km/hr someone mentioned earlier so within the design limits of the helmet. If 30% of my
    impacts are within the design parameters of the helmet and the helmet works as designed I've
    substantially reduced (NOT eliminated) my chances of an Acquired Brain Injury. I think my brain is
    worth that (many might disagree!)

    (Close to finishing now!). I think the debate goes off track too often as people expect safety
    devices to eliminate, not reduce risk. No device can eliminate risk, only reduce. Why bag helmets so
    much because they fail to do what they never claimed to do? There was never a claim of 100%
    protection, but surely limited protection is better than none? I think we get hung up over
    ideologies of forced helmet wearing and matters of convenience and comfort rather than truly
    examining any benefits or lack of benefits to be derived from wearing the things.

    My 2c worth...

    Frank
     
  16. Q.

    Q. Guest

    "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In rec.bicycles.misc Q. <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
    > : "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." - Aleister Crowley
    >
    > lol. that was also on the famous LoD shirt along with "Hacking for
    Jesus."

    I feel a conspiracy going on here ... can you say "illuminati"?

    Hey, wait a minute ...

    C.Q.C.
     
  17. Frkrygow

    Frkrygow Guest

    John Doe wrote:

    > 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.

    What a sheepish attitude! Do you actually feel the government is always right? Do you actually feel
    every safety warning from every special interest group _must_ be obeyed?

    > 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.

    I can understand a person being uninterested in this (or almost any other) issue. But I can't
    understand a person being interested enough to share an opinion, yet not interested enough to
    actually learn enough to accurately _form_ that opinion!

    > 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.

    Indeed. But there are no Mandatory Reading Laws regarding helmet threads. If you're not interested
    enough to want to learn about this issue, you should move on.

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

    Frkrygow Guest

    DRS wrote:

    > S. Anderson <[email protected]> wrote :
    >
    >>If you're over 18, you can do anything you want to yourself as far as I'm concerned.
    >
    >
    > If you lived alone on an island you could get away with that sort of naivette but you don't. What
    > you do impacts on the rest of us in a variety of ways and there's no getting around that fact. You
    > live in a community and you should think communally.

    Hmmm. Do you allow other members of your community to walk near traffic? Eat meat? Eat ice cream?
    Swim without water wings? Play basketball? Think, just think, of the dangers!

    Your logic leads to the kind of society imagined by T.H. White in _The Sword in the Stone_:
    "Everything not compulsory is forbidden."

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

    Frkrygow Guest

    Frank Palermo wrote:

    > While I'm rambling, it's interesting to note the comments about how much impact a helmet doesn't
    > protect you from. It seems to me that impacts often follow a period of decelleration (the squeal
    > of brakes, the time flying over the bars, etc.) so the actual impact is at a lower speed than the
    > travelling speed instantaneously before the impact. So, if I'm cycling at 25km/hr, and a car pulls
    > out on me, I'll hit the brakes (if I had time... this isn't an exact science so, unlike others,
    > I'm not pretending it is) and possibly decelerate to 10km/hr by the time I actually hit the car.
    > I'm below the 12 km/hr someone mentioned earlier so within the design limits of the helmet. If 30%
    > of my impacts are within the design parameters of the helmet and the helmet works as designed I've
    > substantially reduced (NOT eliminated) my chances of an Acquired Brain Injury. I think my brain is
    > worth that (many might disagree!)

    I'm sure that's the optimistic assumption that allowed Snell engineers, back in the 1970s, to
    "certify" helmets tested for mere low-speed impacts. And I'm likewise sure that the entire point of
    the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper (with the absurd "85%" claim) was to justify these low-speed
    helmets - to "prove" they were really worth something.

    The problem is, in the large population, time-series studies, the massive adoption of helmets just
    doesn't produce significant head injury benefits per remaining rider.

    It seems to me that this fact is much more important than any speculation about how a helmet might
    "possibly" save you!

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

    Wainwright Guest

    Like John B,I don't drive a car and never have in my 54 years. I wear a helmet because I will be
    fined $100 here in Oz by the cops if I don't and would rather spend the money on holidays than
    propping up govt coffers. Haven't a strong view either way about helmets. But I do have about cars
    and the way people over-use them, injuring my health with their fumes and the ever increasing
    liklihood of being hit by one. On my 32km (total) commute to work and back each day it is amazing
    the number of cars (hundreds) which are all going the same way to the same place at the same time
    with one person in them. The govt is doing a 1.7km (one mile) road widening along the route to make
    two lanes into four. It involves building two new bridges and the cost: $32million. That sucks. If
    they car pooled, rode bikes, walked or caught the bus or train it would save the $32m and increase
    health and fitness and save more on medical bills etc. The $32m could be spent on something useful
    like schools, old folks homes, new hospitals etc. Forget the tittle tattle about helmets: fewer cars
    and trucks on the roads is what will save lives. anyway, rant over...

    Wainwright.
    --
    Drop Dead if you want to reply personally
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...