Paramount

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

At least he admits it may protect him in a crash; that's more than the
average AHZ will allow!

There are no AHZ's. You cannot prove otherwise.

--
Michael Press

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 09:07:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It is interesting that a helmet could so readily absorb/deflect blows from
fists or feet, yet apparently not from pavement, branches, curb edges, etc.
Seems to me it either PROTECTS or it does not. My experience (and yours,
too) is that is /does/.

Sorni, have you now backpedalled from your claims that helmets can
signficantly reduce the odds of serious head injuries or death and now
are claiming helmets can reduce the severity of minor injuries?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Warner said:

Tim McNamara said:

Yes. Impinged nerve running down into my left shoulder. It gets
aggravated sometimes and wearing a helmet is one thing that does it
pretty regularly.

I'm sorry to hear it, but given the weight of a modern helmet
compared to your head, I'm skeptical. My bet is that it's due to a
different posture or muscle tension when you wear a helmet - you're
probably ducking into the wind, unconsciously trying to minimize its
extra wind resistance.

Hard to say why it causes pain, my current helmet is the lightest that I
could find and it's a little better but I still get more pain than if I
don't wear it. And since I don't see benefit in wearing a helmet and
have definite negative consequences, I often don't wear a helmet. I am
more likely to wear one when riding with friends since they tend to be
pro-helmet and I'd rather not waste riding time on the discussion.

What kind of friend is that?

--
Michael Press

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 12:51:16 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm talking about so-called liberals trying to outlaw things that are bad
(!) or harsh (!). Can't mark a student's paper in (gasp) RED INK because
it's too jarring. Can't have a tug-of-war contest because some will (gasp)
LOSE. (Not to mention the name, of course. Better call it a pulling
contest? Oh, but /contest/ is too competitive.) Light bulbs, big motors,
red meat, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Meanwhile, Al Gore and his ilk fly their private jets to huge,
emission-emitting events all over the world while preaching mass transit and
green energy. Pure hypocrisy.

Quoted message said:

What I have seen are plenty of self-described free-thinkers, even
'libertarians,' who feel the need to judge out loud and pontificate to
unhelmeted riders. They take it upon themselves to enforce the
unwritten uniform code of the Real Cyclist, on dirt and road. Here we
are, resting by the trail, and along come some other bikers. Lo and
behold, <<doubletake>> this guy's not wearing a helmet! What a perfect
opportunity to show how superior, clear-headed, and in-control I am
with a few sharp comments .... These people don't give a flying f*@#
about the safety of others. Their helmet preaching is just part of a
larger personality issue. The 'sport of cycling' is heavily burdened
with these types. If not helmets, something else.

I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank, Flailor, JFT,
can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against lids, they badger and
belittle those who choose to wear them.

I don't know where you ride, but I've never seen or heard anything like you
describe above. If I see a bare-headed guy bouncing down Noble Canyon (a
VERY technical trail), I might think to myself he's nuts, but I certainly
would never lecture him (I'm not a liberal, you see).

Speaking of which, it seems that almost every anti-helmet poster leans well
left politically, although not every left winger is anti-lid by any means.
(I know several die-hard liberals who wouldn't be caught dead riding without
their helmets.)

It's a tad mysterious.

Nice rant Sorni.

Please tell us how you think George W. Bush is a good president and
that the Iraq war is a good thing and then newcomers to this group
will see what a pathetic loser you are.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

email hidden said:

What the hell are you talking about? What stronger info are you
talking about? Once I cracked a helmet in half. had it not been there
my head would have been the next contact surface. what stronger
information is there that says that if my helmet wasn't there my head
would have survived the impact? I passed out and woke up in the
hospital 4 hours later.

What information is there that the helmet helped? I just don't
understand how the fact that something far weaker than your skull was
damaged demonstrates anything. We could look at leather helmets or
even a bag of jello and the fact that those things would be destroyed
would suggest they help, by your logic.

Now, it's possible it did help. But we hear so many stories like
yours that the only way the majority of them could be true would be if
we were seeing unhelmeted people dying in scores. And we don't.

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

email hidden said:

as i told GT, i don't know what kind of force it takes to crack a
helmet in half. I certainly wouldn't want that force being applied
directly to my head.

I don't want it either, but I'm certain it takes far less energy to
crack a helmet than to crack a skull.

Quoted message said:

you can test it if you want. drop
an object on to a helmet and keep increasing the weight or the height
until it splits in half. Now, drop the object directly on your head
and send a post.

It would not be a pleasent experience, but it would almost certainly
not kill me or permanently injure me. Bike helmets simply aren't that
strong.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 13:53:06 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Also, someone please tell JFT

I can read your posts. Your putting me in a killfile doesn't prevent
that. Just want to make sure you know that.

Quoted message said:

that if I am not allowed to comment on what he
writes since I plonked him, then he should cease replying directly to me,
too.

You can comment all you want on my posts -- no one is stopping you.

Quoted message said:

Fair (a foreign concept to him) is fair (thus the plonk).

WTF does this mean?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 13:53:06 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Also, someone please tell JFT that if I am not
allowed to comment on what he
writes since I plonked him,

Who is "not allowing"?

Do you think your newsreader filtering out my posts somehow should
affect what I do?

Please Sorni, get some help. Find someone you trust to explain usenet
to you. While you are at it, some remedial math work would be a good
idea, and perhaps also critical thinking. I think (may be mistaken
here) that you bragged about having a college degree once, but you
might want to consider trying to get your money back on that if you
paid for it -- the school didn't do a very good job.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If people want to wear helmets while cycling, I say go for it, take
> advantage of a bizarre cultural moment. But pushing helmet use on
> others would be an odious thing imo even if helmets were clearly
> beneficial (people have plenty to worry about themselves without
> getting up in other peoples' bike business).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed. So why are many of the same people who are anti-lid also
anti-transfats and -smoking and -SUVs and -red ink on school papers
and -tug-of-war and -etc -etc -etc?!?

ANYONE?

To make it clear, Bill: I didn't answer prior to this, because
answering your posts is usually a waste of time. Occasionally I'll
answer only for the others who may be reading.

But since you asked twice: "Why are many of the same people who are
anti-lid also anti-transfats and -smoking and -SUVs and -red ink on
school papers and -tug-of-war and -etc -etc -etc?!?"

If it's true, it's partly because "many" is non-quantitative and
vague. It's meaningless in this context. In a community this size,
"many" hold every conceivable opinion.

But it's largely false, partly because you are imagining many of the
attitudes you claim to observe, starting with the "anti-lid" (which
you stubbornly refuse to correct) and progressing to the "red ink" and
"tug of war" points.

Finally, since I am actually anti-SUV and anti-smoking in public
places: Those things constitute choices by others that affect me and
my family. They cause added physical risk to us, as well as being
obnoxious.

I don't care if someone takes up rock climbing, or flying light
planes, or motorcycling, or any of the many other things that have
been shown to be more dangerous than bicycling, so long as they don't
get obnoxious with them, or injure others.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> If people want to wear helmets while cycling, I say go for it,
>> take advantage of a bizarre cultural moment. But pushing helmet
>> use on others would be an odious thing imo even if helmets were
>> clearly beneficial (people have plenty to worry about themselves
>> without getting up in other peoples' bike business).

Quoted message said:

> Agreed. So why are many of the same people who are anti-lid also
> anti-transfats and -smoking and -SUVs and -red ink on school papers
> and -tug-of-war and -etc -etc -etc?!?

ANYONE?

To make it clear, Bill: I didn't answer prior to this, because
answering your posts is usually a waste of time.

That's alright, Frank. It wasn't directed at you, anyway.

Bill "wow, you sure waste a LOT of time, donacha?" S.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:25:27 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Of course most people can feel the weight, at least when it's first put
on. It's a pound.

[snip]

Dear John,

Typical modern adult bicycle helmets are only 240 to 300 grams, about
one-half to two-thirds of a pound:

http://www.performancebike.com/shop/sub_cat.cfm?subcategory_ID=4210&thisstart=33&orderby=1&filterby=&searchSize=

Removing material for more and more vents has made modern bicycle
helmets lighter, less likely to pass the original far-from-demanding
impact tests, and more likely to snag in a crash.

For comparison, here are some motorcycle helmet weights:

http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-helmets/motorcycle-helmet-weights.htm

This graph shows the weight in grams for those motorcycle helmets,
which run from 1400 to 1900 grams, or 2 to 4 pounds:

http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-helmets/helmet-photos/helmet-weights-ps.jpg

The solid, stiff shell, considerably more padding, great coverage, and
no vents are what make the motorcycle helmets heavier.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

At least he admits it may protect him in a crash; that's more than
the average AHZ will allow!

There are no AHZ's. You cannot prove otherwise.

jflailor.

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you are talking about
somebody specifically (Frank?), address them. I like transfats and
can't get enough of the tug-of-war. Sometimes I watch SUV Tug-of-War
while snacking on a bowl of pure lard.

I'm talking about so-called liberals trying to outlaw things that are bad
(!) or harsh (!). Can't mark a student's paper in (gasp) RED INK because
it's too jarring. Can't have a tug-of-war contest because some will (gasp)
LOSE. (Not to mention the name, of course. Better call it a pulling
contest? Oh, but /contest/ is too competitive.) Light bulbs, big motors,
red meat, etc. etc. etc. etc.

You're doing the usual "ditto-head" bashing of anyone you disagree
with, tarring them with the term "liberal" and thinking you know ALL
their attitudes and opinions. It's the usual grossly simplified,
black-and-white world view that we've come to expect.

Quoted message said:

I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank, Flailor, JFT,
can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against lids, they badger and
belittle those who choose to wear them.

:-) Shall we quote the mindless insults from you and Ozark AGAIN?

Admittedly, it's sometimes difficult to remain diplomatic with someone
who is routinely insulting and anti-science. But ISTM that most of
the helmet skeptic arguments tend more toward pointing to data, or
giving factual rebuttals. It's the pro-helmet people who have said
things like "If you don't wear a helmet, you must not have a brain."
In fact, at least one famous helmet-promotion website has a large
inventory of such insults that they encourage their disciples to use!

Quoted message said:

I don't know where you ride, but I've never seen or heard anything like you
describe above. If I see a bare-headed guy bouncing down Noble Canyon (a
VERY technical trail), I might think to myself he's nuts, but I certainly
would never lecture him (I'm not a liberal, you see).

Speaking of which, it seems that almost every anti-helmet poster leans well
left politically, although not every left winger is anti-lid by any means.
(I know several die-hard liberals who wouldn't be caught dead riding without
their helmets.)

And I know several staunch right-wingers who feel the same. The
delusion of value is widespread.

I'll agree on this point: It does seem that those leaning politically
left are more prone to be pro-helmet, or pro-MHL. That's been the
situation in my state, anyway.

Still, I've gotten the obnoxious "Where's your helmet?" and pro-helmet
arguments from all parts of the political spectrum.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted post said:

On Jul 6, 5:19 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

as i told GT, i don't know what kind of force it takes to crack a
helmet in half. I certainly wouldn't want that force being applied
directly to my head. also, i don't don't know if that force alone
would cause a person serious injury. you can test it if you want. drop
an object on to a helmet and keep increasing the weight or the height
until it splits in half. Now, drop the object directly on your head
and send a post.

And for an alternative test: Lean your bare head toward the side of a
speeding railroad train, closer and closer, until your scalp is 1/2
inch away. Now repeat, putting your head in exactly the same
position, but this time with an inch-thick helmet strapped to it.

The point is, the cushioning effect of a helmet does not come without
a price. The head becomes a larger target, and if you could obtain
data for the entire population of cyclists, it's obvious it would show
more helmet impacts than bare head impacts. I clearly recall a fall
as a teenager when my head barely touched the ground; had I worn a
helmet, it would have taken a very solid whack, and perhaps even split
in two. (The tensile strength of styrofoam is minuscule, of course.)

Quoted message said:

you need to remember that the force that cracked my helmet also
rendered me unconscious for four hours. So, it is the sum of a force
capable of cracking a helmet plus the sum of a force capable of
rendering me unconscious for 4 hours. What would have happened if I
hadn't had the helmet? I have no idea, but I am happy that I had it
on. More recently I fell and again I cracked the helmet but not as
bad. Still, I was happy to have it on.

And it may be the helmet did protect you. And it may be that it
didn't. But we can certainly say that many, if not most, of the "my
helmet saved my [life, brain, whatever]" stories must be mistaken.
Why? Simply because serious (i.e. consequential) bike head injuries
are extremely rare, and "my helmet saved me" stories are quite common.

IOW, those head injuries didn't appear before there were helmets.
Statistically, they didn't decrease after there were helmets.* The
bulk of the helmet protection stories must therefore be mistaken...

Much like the stories that say "Snapping my fingers all the time keeps
me from getting trampled by elephants. I know that, because I snap my
fingers, and I've never yet gotten trampled!"

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

The point is, the cushioning effect of a helmet does not come without
a price.

Best deal in town! LOL

On Jul 7, 3:36 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:08:28 -0700, "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

What the hell are you talking about? What stronger info are you
talking about? Once I cracked a helmet in half. had it not been there
my head would have been the next contact surface. what stronger
information is there that says that if my helmet wasn't there my head
would have survived the impact? I passed out and woke up in the
hospital 4 hours later.

What information is there that the helmet helped? I just don't
understand how the fact that something far weaker than your skull was
damaged demonstrates anything. We could look at leather helmets or
even a bag of jello and the fact that those things would be destroyed
would suggest they help, by your logic.

Now, it's possible it did help. But we hear so many stories like
yours that the only way the majority of them could be true would be if
we were seeing unhelmeted people dying in scores. And we don't.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Are you familiar with something called a concussion. It is a serious
blow to the head. It can cause anywhere from unconsciousness to more
severe problems. I never said that the impacts to my helmet prevented
my skull from cracking or exploding. I simply argued that it prevented
more serious damage. the skull, as you probably know, has no organic
function. It simply protects the brain. a helmet is not necessarily
designed to prevent the skull from exploding, as you, articulate
types, put it. It adds another lawyer of protection to the brain. A
blow to the head, without cracking your skull, can still kill you. The
fact that there are more cracked helmets than cracked skulls doesn't
mean that the helmets prevented skulls from cracking. It simply means
that they prevented blows to the head which could have resulted in
mild concussions or more severe and irreparable damage. the fact that
you argue that there are so many cracked helmets implies that people
fall on their head while riding. I think that those who were wearing a
helmet and it cracked were pretty lucky to have been wearing one.

Andres

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

(about...?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank,
Flailor, JFT, can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against
lids, they badger and belittle those who choose to wear them.

Quoted message said:

:-) Shall we quote the mindless insults from you and Ozark AGAIN?

Well yes, Frank, I dared to answer your pompous condescension with return
insults. Probably even lost my temper a few times, before realizing with
what I was dealing. Typical brainiac (self-described) quite sure his is the
/only/ correct opinion.

Quoted message said:

Admittedly, it's sometimes difficult to remain diplomatic with someone
who is routinely insulting and anti-science. But ISTM that most of
the helmet skeptic arguments tend more toward pointing to data, or
giving factual rebuttals. It's the pro-helmet people who have said
things like "If you don't wear a helmet, you must not have a brain."
In fact, at least one famous helmet-promotion website has a large
inventory of such insults that they encourage their disciples to use!

But you attribute those types of arguments to those who do not use them.
People who have personal experience and use their own reasoning to arrive at
a conclusion that differs from yours do not deserve the type of derision you
so often deal out.

You read stats and population studies and decide to do one thing. Others
have or see things happen first-hand and apply common sense (a barrier
between one's skull and a very hard surface is a good thing) and decide
diffferently. BFD. Get over it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know where you ride, but I've never seen or heard anything
like you describe above. If I see a bare-headed guy bouncing down
Noble Canyon (a VERY technical trail), I might think to myself he's
nuts, but I certainly would never lecture him (I'm not a liberal,
you see).

Speaking of which, it seems that almost every anti-helmet poster
leans well left politically, although not every left winger is
anti-lid by any means. (I know several die-hard liberals who
wouldn't be caught dead riding without their helmets.)

And I know several staunch right-wingers who feel the same. The
delusion of value is widespread.

Ah, but do you know any right wingers who are vehemently ANTI helmet? I
don't recall even one on here, and certainly don't know any.

Quoted message said:

I'll agree on this point: It does seem that those leaning politically
left are more prone to be pro-helmet, or pro-MHL. That's been the
situation in my state, anyway.

Then why are the only ones so rabidly /anti/ helmet all seemingly left, too?

Quoted message said:

Still, I've gotten the obnoxious "Where's your helmet?" and pro-helmet
arguments from all parts of the political spectrum.

Maybe they just like tweaking you because you're so conceited or something?
<eg>

Quoted message said:

It adds another lawyer of protection to the brain.

^^^^^^^

Doctor Freud, Line 1. Please pick up.

(The rest of what you write is quite right, but you're arguing with a
moronic bulldog. Have fun.)

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
..

Quoted message said:

And for an alternative test: Lean your bare head toward the side of a
speeding railroad train, closer and closer, until your scalp is 1/2
inch away. Now repeat, putting your head in exactly the same
position, but this time with an inch-thick helmet strapped to it.

The point is, the cushioning effect of a helmet does not come without
a price. The head becomes a larger target, and if you could obtain
data for the entire population of cyclists, it's obvious it would show
more helmet impacts than bare head impacts.

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill

Sornson said:

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
> Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

{Note all context removed. It's pathological!}

>> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;

> Which is a belief not an established fact.

A) It's common sense;

Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse me
with the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need science.

No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact will be
harder if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called a BARRIER or
BUFFER, you see.)

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.