Nailed like a newbie

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:33:03 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Don't try to change the subject. Nobody said anything about being cold. After all, being cold is
>just a comfort issue. We're talking about saving the lives of countless children. I find it immoral
>for you to oppose mandatory sweater laws.

But sweaters purport to keep people warm! They are supposed to protect from health issues caused by
cold as well as from damage in an accident. Since it's proven that they don't save cyclists lives
from sub-0f-caused health issues, they can NOT be of any help to anybody in any situation. Further,
by riding properly, one can increase his chances of staying warm and safe. Finally, I blame shoes
for our danger of being too cold; if it weren't for shoes, our distant ancestors could never have
walked to the cold climates that modern humans live in. Our neighborhoods shouldn't be designed for
shoes; they should be designed for feet. Will somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!

>Austin
--
Rick "This is fun" Onanian

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>Sorry to hear that you were doored but glad you seem to be pretty much okay. I have to wonder- did
>that heavy wool sweater save your life? <g>

Well, it did give a little cushion when I hit the frozen asphalt, yeah.

But I owe it all to the sweater, clearly. This wasn't an average sweater, this was an L.L. Bean
Irish fisherman's sweater, I'm talking a heavy sweater here. An expensive full coverage industrial
rated sweater.

You might get similar results from a Giro sweater, but I doubt it.

The bruises on my upper body were, like, totally minimal.

I was up and riding the next morning, no problems except that my skinned knee was irritated by jeans
(at work, not riding) and I had some problems with my thumb which are resolving nicely.

So it wasn't a bad crash, I didn't bounce my head off the pavement or anything, why would I do that
if I wasn't wearing a helmet.

Thanks for your concern.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[Bernie]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:33:03 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Don't try to change the subject. Nobody said anything about being cold. After all, being cold is
> >just a comfort issue. We're talking about saving the lives of countless children. I find it
> >immoral for you to oppose mandatory sweater laws.
>
> But sweaters purport to keep people warm! They are supposed to protect from health issues caused
> by cold as well as from damage in an accident. Since it's proven that they don't save cyclists
> lives from sub-0f-caused health issues, they can NOT be of any help to anybody in any situation.
> Further, by riding properly, one can increase his chances of staying warm and safe. Finally, I
> blame shoes for our danger of being too cold; if it weren't for shoes, our distant ancestors could
> never have walked to the cold climates that modern humans live in. Our neighborhoods shouldn't be
> designed for shoes; they should be designed for feet. Will somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!

I do think of the CHILDREN! Those little beggars always want to run around barefoot. What can one
do? Hopefully global warming will be the answer to our prayers. Bernie
>
> >Austin

 

[Rick Onanian]

On 4 Feb 2004 04:13:53 -0800, [email protected] (Bernie) wrote:
>I do think of the CHILDREN! Those little beggars always want to run around barefoot. What can one
>do? Hopefully global warming will be the answer to our prayers.

Where is that global warming when I need it, anyway? I haven't ridden since October!
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Austinmn]

> But sweaters purport to keep people warm! They are supposed to protect from health issues caused
> by cold as well as from damage in an accident. Since it's proven that they don't save cyclists
> lives from sub-0f-caused health issues, they can NOT be of any help to anybody in any situation.
> Further, by riding properly, one can increase his chances of staying warm and safe.

Clearly, what's needed is a carefully controlled study to determine the relative merits of sweaters
vs. no sweaters. Any such study would be wise to consider alternate forms of protection, such as
parkas, kevlar vests, and leather jackets. And the real issue isn't the cold, it's the life-
threatening road rash, knee skins, and elbow scrapes that the sweater is needed to protect against.

I have every confidence that the sweaters will be found to protect against deadly road rash, at
least in accidents below 14 MPH. Because of this, I urge everyone to support mandatory sweater
laws today.

> Finally, I blame shoes for our danger of being too cold; if it weren't for shoes, our distant
> ancestors could never have walked to the cold climates that modern humans live in. Our
> neighborhoods shouldn't be designed for shoes; they should be designed for feet. Will somebody
> PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!

Another poster already mentioned that children prefer being barefoot. Those wearing shoes clearly
have a responsibility to keep our children safe from the dangers of large shoes in the hands of (or
on the feet of) incompetent adult operators. Just think of how many toes are stepped on by larger
adults. It brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it.

In addition to the shoes, most road lanes have an area on the edge (where barefoot walkers are
expected to travel) that is filled with glass, gravel, sand, and other debris. Careful examination
of any well-traveled road reveals that these hazards are almost non-existent in the traveled section
of the lane. Therefore, I believe the safest place for bare feet is in the lane.

Austin

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:51:05 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I have every confidence that the sweaters will be found to protect against deadly road rash, at
>least in accidents below 14 MPH.

How can they possibly help with _anything_ when they weren't designed and tested for _everything_?

>Because of this, I urge everyone to support mandatory sweater laws today.

Sure, today, MSL, but what's next, mandatory garment laws requiring people to cover their genitals?
Soon, they'll have us wearing shorts and footwear while riding!

>Another poster already mentioned that children prefer being barefoot. Those wearing shoes clearly
>have a responsibility to keep our children safe from the dangers of large shoes in the hands of (or
>on the feet of) incompetent adult operators. Just think of how many toes are stepped on by larger
>adults. It brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it.

Maybe we can initiate a multi-step program; people wearing boots would move down to sneakers; then
sneakers would be replaced by sandals; then they would be replaced by flip-flops; which would then
move on to slippers; and finally, everybody can wear bare feet. Maybe a flexible "second-skin" type
coating on the foot as an intermediate step before bare feet.

>In addition to the shoes, most road lanes have an area on the edge (where barefoot walkers are
>expected to travel) that is filled with glass, gravel, sand, and other debris. Careful examination
>of any well-traveled road reveals that these hazards are almost non-existent in the traveled
>section of the lane. Therefore, I believe the safest place for bare feet is in the lane.

By taking the lane, barefoot pedestrians ensure greater visibility, as well as forcing drivers to
give them a whole lane when passing. However, pedestrians not wearing proper blinkies and headlights
at night must begin to use appropriate equipment.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Bernie]

Rick Onanian wrote:

>On 4 Feb 2004 04:13:53 -0800, [email protected] (Bernie) wrote:
>
>>I do think of the CHILDREN! Those little beggars always want to run around barefoot. What can one
>>do? Hopefully global warming will be the answer to our prayers.
>>
>
>Where is that global warming when I need it, anyway? I haven't ridden since October!
>--
>Rick Onanian
>
Well, I've been watching, and it appears global warming goes south in the winter anc comes north
again in the spring. This may not apply in places like Minnesota and N. Ontario, Winterpeg,
etc. Bernie

 

[Bernie]

Rick Onanian wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:51:05 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I have every confidence that the sweaters will be found to protect against deadly road rash, at
>>least in accidents below 14 MPH.
>>
>
>How can they possibly help with _anything_ when they weren't designed and tested for _everything_?
>
>>Because of this, I urge everyone to support mandatory sweater laws today.
>>
>
>Sure, today, MSL, but what's next, mandatory garment laws requiring people to cover their genitals?
>Soon, they'll have us wearing shorts and footwear while riding!
>
>>Another poster already mentioned that children prefer being barefoot. Those wearing shoes clearly
>>have a responsibility to keep our children safe from the dangers of large shoes in the hands of
>>(or on the feet of) incompetent adult operators. Just think of how many toes are stepped on by
>>larger adults. It brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it.
>>
>
>Maybe we can initiate a multi-step program; people wearing boots would move down to sneakers; then
>sneakers would be replaced by sandals; then they would be replaced by flip-flops; which would then
>move on to slippers; and finally, everybody can wear bare feet. Maybe a flexible "second-skin" type
>coating on the foot as an intermediate step before bare feet.
>
>>In addition to the shoes, most road lanes have an area on the edge (where barefoot walkers are
>>expected to travel) that is filled with glass, gravel, sand, and other debris. Careful examination
>>of any well-traveled road reveals that these hazards are almost non-existent in the traveled
>>section of the lane. Therefore, I believe the safest place for bare feet is in the lane.
>>
>
>By taking the lane, barefoot pedestrians ensure greater visibility, as well as forcing drivers to
>give them a whole lane when passing. However, pedestrians not wearing proper blinkies and
>headlights at night must begin to use appropriate equipment.
>--
>Rick Onanian
>
You make some good points. I'm thinking about safety: in numbers... in lights... in reflective
clothing... in colours... in noise... in the visibility of moving objects as opposed to stationary
objects...

Okay, here it is: the safest way for barefoot pedestrians to travel in the traffic lane -
highest visibility, greatest safety, is to travel in large groups, wear lots of blinking lights
on their clothing from ankles to head including well lit headdresses, colourful outfits, some
expressive sounds.

It would work like this: form a Conga line, keep the music going, light up, and dance the
night away!

Just like Mardi Gras. Best regards, (and no apologies) Bernie

 

[Jay]

>> Eric S. Sande wrote: I got doored this evening, it was totally my fault. I made the mistake of
>> filtering right at a light, a cab door popped open right in my zone and I was down in a
>> heartbeat.

>R15757 at [email protected] wrote: Your willingness to accept responsibility is refreshing and bodes
>well for your future safety, but you knew that already.

Actually "dooring" by anyone in a motor vehicle is illegal in Ontario. That includes passengers.

You may want to check what the law is in your state/province.

Even if people are breaking the law, it is a good idea to learn how to read upcoming
possible collision situation and see how you may avoid them. You seem to have gotten that
message with a "thud".

 

[Jay]

>> Sorry to hear that you were doored but glad you seem to be pretty much okay. I have to wonder-
>> did that heavy wool sweater save your life? <g>

>Eric S. Sande at [email protected] wrote: Well, it did give a little cushion when I hit the frozen
>asphalt, yeah.
>
> But I owe it all to the sweater, clearly. This wasn't an average sweater, this was an L.L. Bean
> Irish fisherman's sweater, I'm talking a heavy sweater here. An expensive full coverage industrial
> rated sweater.
>
> You might get similar results from a Giro sweater, but I doubt it.
>
> The bruises on my upper body were, like, totally minimal.<snip>

Eric, we may have to report you for sweater abuse! <grin

 

[Chris Zacho "Th]

OK, you brought it up. Just what constitutes "the average doorer" (is that a word? It's not in my
spell check...)?

"May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

 

[Chris Zacho "Th]

>[email protected]
(Elisa=A0Francesca=A0Roselli) wrote:
>I'm impressed to hear that this can happen even to experienced cyclists. I have to integrate it
>into my consciousness as something one gets over.

>Thanks for providing a role model.

>EFR Ile de France

It happens to anyone, especially in these days of low slung cars with pitch black windows, which
make it virtually impossible to see the driver, much less his or her intentions.

It takes slightly less than two seconds to fully open a car door. in this time a cyclist traveling
at just 15 miles an hour can travel over a full car length. In most cases, a glancing blow is about
the best one can expect. I know, it's happened to me, on El Lay's busy Van Nuys Blvd.

Fortunately, I wasn't run over by another motorist!

"May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

 

[Terry Morse]

Chris Zacho wrote:

> Should I wear a soft or hard shelled sweater fo fast riding in hot weather?

It doesn't matter. The testing standards for sweaters are so minimal that you can have no confidence
in any sweater's protection.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:14:07 -0800, Terry Morse <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Chris Zacho wrote:
>> Should I wear a soft or hard shelled sweater fo fast riding in hot weather?
>
>It doesn't matter. The testing standards for sweaters are so minimal that you can have no
>confidence in any sweater's protection.

I don't think he was questioning the safety issue, but rather how the sweater would affect his
riding. It's like somebody asking which type of helmet, not whether or not to wear a helmet.

Chris, the hard shelled sweaters are much more aero, so that's what you should wear for fast riding
in hot weather. If you get too hot inside it, make sure you're wearing a wicking undershirt that is
tested to Snell standards...
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Austinmn]

> >Chris Zacho wrote:
> >> Should I wear a soft or hard shelled sweater fo fast riding in hot weather?
> >
> >It doesn't matter. The testing standards for sweaters are so minimal that you can have no
> >confidence in any sweater's protection.
>
> I don't think he was questioning the safety issue, but rather how the sweater would affect his
> riding. It's like somebody asking which type of helmet, not whether or not to wear a helmet.
>
> Chris, the hard shelled sweaters are much more aero, so that's what you should wear for fast
> riding in hot weather. If you get too hot inside it, make sure you're wearing a wicking undershirt
> that is tested to Snell standards...

This may be the prime issue in cooler weather, but in hot weather the micro-fine ventilation of a
soft-shell or no-shell sweater would provide ventilation far superior to a hard-shelled sweater.
Test results regarding the supposedly superior protection of hard-shelled sweaters have been
inconclusive so far, so they may not offer anything but aerodynamic improvements.

Austin

 

[JohnnyJ]

AustinMN wrote: <a load of **** about *more* rules and boundries>

Are you a troll? I honestly can't tell... JohnnyJ

 

[AustinMN]

Not a troll, just someone with a sense of humor.

BTW, since the post you responded to was almost a month old, I had to do a Google just to figure out
what you were talking about.

Austin "JohnnyJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
berlin.de...
> AustinMN wrote: <a load of **** about *more* rules and boundries>
>
> Are you a troll? I honestly can't tell... JohnnyJ