Personally, I really don't care if you wear a helmet or not...

[Hell and High Water]

In article <H4F*[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Quoting Hell and High Water <[email protected]>:
> >I, on the other hand, would clearly be dead, had I not had one on that
> >day.
>
> Who volunteered for you repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted
> head?
>
> Or, in other words, "clearly", nothing. Like everyone else with a "saved
> my life" story, you're almost certainly deluded. You suffered non-fatal
> injuries to the rest of the body - why suppose that the injuries to the
> very toughest part of the body would have been fatal?

Since I hit my head hard enough to knock myself out for a while, and
wipe out my memory for a while, AND destroy the helmet, I hate to
imagine what would have happened to my head had I not been wearing the
helmet....


You are correct, in that I cannot perform a 'with' and 'without'
experiment. It is merely an assumption that the obvious severe head
injury would have resulted in death.


However, most people missed my point entirely.


I'm simply saying: 'Feel free to wear a helmet or not. It makes no
difference to me, as I'll have a helmet on, should I fall again.'


-Bob

 

[Bill Sornson]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> Yikes touy would think this is about the Arab-Israeli conflict or
> abortion or something...it's about a plastic hat on your head while
> you use that toy called a bicycle...

Again, we /really/ could have used you about three months ago! <eg>

 

[Bill Sornson]

Hell and High Water wrote:
> In article <H4F*[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Quoting Hell and High Water <[email protected]>:
>>> I, on the other hand, would clearly be dead, had I not had one on
>>> that day.
>>
>> Who volunteered for you repeating the experiment with a control
>> unhelmeted head?
>>
>> Or, in other words, "clearly", nothing. Like everyone else with a
>> "saved my life" story, you're almost certainly deluded. You suffered
>> non-fatal injuries to the rest of the body - why suppose that the
>> injuries to the very toughest part of the body would have been fatal?
>
> Since I hit my head hard enough to knock myself out for a while, and
> wipe out my memory for a while, AND destroy the helmet, I hate to
> imagine what would have happened to my head had I not been wearing the
> helmet....
>
>
> You are correct, in that I cannot perform a 'with' and 'without'
> experiment. It is merely an assumption that the obvious severe head
> injury would have resulted in death.
>
>
> However, most people missed my point entirely.
>
>
> I'm simply saying: 'Feel free to wear a helmet or not. It makes no
> difference to me, as I'll have a helmet on, should I fall again.'

First of all, TOLD YA SO! (That you'd get flamed, ridiculed and insulted
for your heresy of posting about a personal experience and resulting
choice.)

Secondly, glad you're still riding. Lots of people get spooked after a
crash like yours and never really "get back on the horse".

Lastly, thanks for posting about it. I don't understand why so many are so
threatened by what you wrote; even your last remark ('Feel free to wear a
helmet or not. It makes no difference to me, as I'll have a helmet on,
should I fall again.') will draw their ire.

Roll on.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Hell and High Water <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] says...
>>Quoting Hell and High Water <[email protected]>:
>>>I, on the other hand, would clearly be dead, had I not had one on that
>>>day.
>>Who volunteered for you repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted
>>head?
>Since I hit my head hard enough to knock myself out for a while, and
>wipe out my memory for a while, AND destroy the helmet, I hate to
>imagine what would have happened to my head had I not been wearing the
>helmet....

Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.

>You are correct, in that I cannot perform a 'with' and 'without'
>experiment. It is merely an assumption that the obvious severe head
>injury would have resulted in death.

An assumption, and a completely unjustified one.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Epithumia, July - a weekend.

 

[Hell and High Water]

In article <R0j*[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...


> Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
> case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
> crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.


That's a joke.

You're making VERY little sense with statements like that...


-Bob

 

[Sandy]

Hell and High Water a écrit :
> In article <R0j*[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
>> Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
>> case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
>> crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
>>
>
>
> That's a joke.
>
> You're making VERY little sense with statements like that...
>
>
http://www2.braintrauma.org/news/article.php?id=64

 

[Sandy]

Hell and High Water a écrit :
> In article <R0j*[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
>> Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
>> case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
>> crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
>>
>
>
> That's a joke.
>
> You're making VERY little sense with statements like that...
>
>
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/532312.html

 

[Hell and High Water]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Hell and High Water a écrit :
> > In article <R0j*[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> >
> >> Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
> >> case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessaryto
> >> crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's a joke.
> >
> > You're making VERY little sense with statements like that...
> >
> >
> http://www2.braintrauma.org/news/article.php?id=64


'...helmets are 85 to 88% effective in mitigating head and brain
injuries...'



Well, he was close with his 10% figure...


-Bob

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 31 Jul 2006 16:24:11 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Hell and High Water <[email protected]>:
>>[email protected] says...
>>>Quoting Hell and High Water <[email protected]>:
>>>>I, on the other hand, would clearly be dead, had I not had one on that
>>>>day.
>>>Who volunteered for you repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted
>>>head?
>>Since I hit my head hard enough to knock myself out for a while, and
>>wipe out my memory for a while, AND destroy the helmet, I hate to
>>imagine what would have happened to my head had I not been wearing the
>>helmet....
>
>Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
>case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
>crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
>
>>You are correct, in that I cannot perform a 'with' and 'without'
>>experiment. It is merely an assumption that the obvious severe head
>>injury would have resulted in death.
>
>An assumption, and a completely unjustified one.

I share David Damerell's dissapointment with the "would certainly have
died" stories we hear about helmets. I just don't understand why
people have to exagerrate about the effect of helmets.

Hell and High Water had brain injuries -- that's serious. It seems to
me enough to say something like "the helmet absorbed some of the
impact -- I think the injuries would have been worse without it.'
That's plausible without hyperbole.

Similarly I don't understand why people say there's not drawbacks to
wearing a helmet -- going so far as to say, for example, they don't
contribute to the head being any hotter or there is no reason not to
wear one. It's much more reasonable to say "They're pretty
comfortable" or "They're comfortable in most situations."

JT

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:55:11 -0500, Hell and High Water
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]

>> >
>> >
>> http://www2.braintrauma.org/news/article.php?id=64
>
>
>'...helmets are 85 to 88% effective in mitigating head and brain
>injuries...'

LOL.

JT

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

 

[[email protected]]

Hell and High Water wrote:
> In article <R0j*[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
> > Well, since the helmet - assuming it didn't crack not squash, in which
> > case it did very little - can absorb about 10% of the energy necessary to
> > crack your skull, very likely the effects would have been much the same.
>
>
> That's a joke.
>

It's also part of the AHZ "boilerplate" response.


> You're making VERY little sense with statements like that...
>
>

Just wait, it gets better. You haven't seen the "Do you wear a helmet
whilst walking?" or the "Helmets increase injuries." BS yet.

Are these AHZs nuts? IMO, the answer is a resounding "YES!".

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2006 06:06:56 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:59:50 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> >> On 29 Jul 2006 07:00:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> helmets...'may' help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for head
> >> >>> injury...
> >> >
> >> >> Yeah. Wristguards 'may" help, don't hurt but are not a panacea for
> >> >> wrist injuries. That's why smart cyclists use them. Same with chin
> >> >> guards.
> >> >
> >> >Typical sloppy attempt. Wristguards CAN hurt -- not only re. comfort but by
> >> >interfering with the hands' movements (working the brakes, gear shifts,
> >> >etc.). That's why essentially NO cyclists ever wear them. (Unlike, say...
> >> >oh yeah, helmets!)
> >>
> >> And you're saying helmets don't hurt in any way? No comfort issues,
> >> no weight issues, no visibility issues, no cost issues?
> >>
> >> Wow.
> >>
> >> JT
> >>
> >> PS - I've seen cyclists with wristgaurds. It's exceedingly rare, but
> >> I've seen riders with them.
> >
> >Yikes touy would think this is about the Arab-Israeli conflict or
> >abortion or something...it's about a plastic hat on your head while you
> >use that toy called a bicycle...
>
> If it's not a a big deal, why do you feel compelled to respond? Why
> do you have to post about it at all?
>
> Also, I know you're into bike art and I'm into bicycle sport, but the
> fundamental role of the bicycle in society is for transportation.
> It's a toy to some of us, but first and foremost it's for
> transportation.
>

I don't get the emotion involved....as for responding, this is a
discussion group so I was discussing something that happened to me...

As for the US and the bike...I ride everyday, I ride much more than I
drive, BUT in the USA, the primary role of the 'bicycle' is far from
transportation, mostly just a leisure time activity, a toy, like golf
clubs..may be different for you, may be your transportation and it is
for some but it just ain't so in the good ole USA...I would like it to
be so, but it just sin't in 99% of the places in the USA.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 05:50:56 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> >>
> >> If it's not a a big deal, why do you feel compelled to respond? Why
> >> do you have to post about it at all?
> >>
> >> Also, I know you're into bike art and I'm into bicycle sport, but the
> >> fundamental role of the bicycle in society is for transportation.
> >> It's a toy to some of us, but first and foremost it's for
> >> transportation.
> >>
> >
> >I don't get the emotion involved....as for responding, this is a
> >discussion group so I was discussing something that happened to me...
> >
> >As for the US and the bike...I ride everyday, I ride much more than I
> >drive, BUT in the USA, the primary role of the 'bicycle' is far from
> >transportation, mostly just a leisure time activity, a toy, like golf
> >clubs..may be different for you, may be your transportation and it is
> >for some but it just ain't so in the good ole USA...I would like it to
> >be so, but it just sin't in 99% of the places in the USA.
>
> There is emotion involved because we live in a society with vast
> numbers of cars that effect our foreign policy and the environment,
> and in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to get people to
> walk or ride to work or for errands. If's a bad situation which
> effects our society deeply in a lot of ways.
>
> So I object to people who are in leadership roles in cycling talking
> about them primarily as toys. If you do, you're playing right into the
> spiral of marginalzing cycling. That's unfortuante and is worth
> strong objections.

I am desribing the situation as it is. You can do what ever you want to
make bicycles a more important part of US society but unless a few
things happen, like sacrcity of fuel, a more centralized living
enviornment, easier places to ride after the above, it just isn't going
to happen. Getting there on a bicycle has to be as easy as driving
there, and that will never be the case unless driving just isn't
possible. You are dealing with decades of brain washing about cars and
this fundamental change in society will be next to impossible unless
this society crumbles, and there is no gas.

It's great to say the car is bad and bicycles are good, but except for
saying that, how do you get the people in say, Memphis, to ride instead
of drive. And then how in a place that isn't warm all year, like
Detroit? How do you do it? Feel good solutions don't work. The majority
of people don't do it cuz it's a good idea. It has to be cheap and easy
or it isn't going to happen.
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 1 Aug 2006 05:50:56 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

>>
>> If it's not a a big deal, why do you feel compelled to respond? Why
>> do you have to post about it at all?
>>
>> Also, I know you're into bike art and I'm into bicycle sport, but the
>> fundamental role of the bicycle in society is for transportation.
>> It's a toy to some of us, but first and foremost it's for
>> transportation.
>>
>
>I don't get the emotion involved....as for responding, this is a
>discussion group so I was discussing something that happened to me...
>
>As for the US and the bike...I ride everyday, I ride much more than I
>drive, BUT in the USA, the primary role of the 'bicycle' is far from
>transportation, mostly just a leisure time activity, a toy, like golf
>clubs..may be different for you, may be your transportation and it is
>for some but it just ain't so in the good ole USA...I would like it to
>be so, but it just sin't in 99% of the places in the USA.

There is emotion involved because we live in a society with vast
numbers of cars that effect our foreign policy and the environment,
and in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to get people to
walk or ride to work or for errands. If's a bad situation which
effects our society deeply in a lot of ways.

So I object to people who are in leadership roles in cycling talking
about them primarily as toys. If you do, you're playing right into the
spiral of marginalzing cycling. That's unfortuante and is worth
strong objections.

JT

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 1 Aug 2006 05:50:56 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>As for the US and the bike...I ride everyday, I ride much more than I
>drive, BUT in the USA, the primary role of the 'bicycle' is far from
>transportation, mostly just a leisure time activity, a toy, like golf
>clubs..may be different for you, may be your transportation and it is
>for some but it just ain't so in the good ole USA...I would like it to
>be so, but it just sin't in 99% of the places in the USA.

Also, what you say about most bike use being for toy use *might* be
true, but are you sure it is? I don't know. For sure in your shop
and in my racing club it seems it is, but when I go outside in my city
the majority of people on bikes appear to be commuting or are
deliverypeople. In my city it's reported that regular bike riding
averages about 120,000 people per day. I *think* that's mainly
commuting and deliverypeople.

Maybe if we add up all the people who ride in the course of, say, a
year, the majority of people do it for leisure -- because we have the
people who only ride occasionally for fun. But in terms of total hour
on the bike, I think transportation trumps leisure.

JT


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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 1 Aug 2006 06:07:37 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I am desribing the situation as it is. You can do what ever you want to
>make bicycles a more important part of US society but unless a few
>things happen, like sacrcity of fuel, a more centralized living
>enviornment, easier places to ride after the above, it just isn't going
>to happen.

Do you think mocking people who point out the negativee effect the
"wear a helmet" thing has on this is a good idea? Why say it? What's
your point if the effect makes a bad situation worse? Why not
actually take a stand?

JT

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

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 06:07:37 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I am desribing the situation as it is. You can do what ever you want to
> >make bicycles a more important part of US society but unless a few
> >things happen, like sacrcity of fuel, a more centralized living
> >enviornment, easier places to ride after the above, it just isn't going
> >to happen.
>
> Do you think mocking people who point out the negativee effect the
> "wear a helmet" thing has on this is a good idea? Why say it? What's
> your point if the effect makes a bad situation worse? Why not
> actually take a stand?

'Mock people? WTF are you talking about? Negative effect of wearing a
helmet? Is wearing a helmet responsible for less poeple riding? Sorry,
ya lost me...
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 1 Aug 2006 06:28:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>'Mock people? WTF are you talking about?

Saying the bike is just a toy. That's mocking. It's a toy perhaps
for me and my racing buddies and you and your customers, but it's
transportation for many people. Vital transporation for some.

> Negative effect of wearing a
>helmet? Is wearing a helmet responsible
> for less poeple riding? Sorry,
>ya lost me...

Yes -- it's making riding out to be especially dangerous and requiring
special safety equipment, when in fact it's about as dangerous as lots
of other things we do w/o special equipment. Why do that?

JT

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

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 06:28:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >'Mock people? WTF are you talking about?
>
> Saying the bike is just a toy. That's mocking. It's a toy perhaps
> for me and my racing buddies and you and your customers, but it's
> transportation for many people. Vital transporation for some.

Oh please....that's ridiclous...
>
> > Negative effect of wearing a
> >helmet? Is wearing a helmet responsible
> > for less poeple riding? Sorry,
> >ya lost me...
>
> Yes -- it's making riding out to be especially dangerous and requiring
> special safety equipment, when in fact it's about as dangerous as lots
> of other things we do w/o special equipment. Why do that?

Welll, when compared to a lot of things , when compared to walking for
instance, even if only because you are traveling faster, it IS more
dangerous. Not 'dangerous', "danger Will Robison!!' dangerous, but more
dangerous. I think it does take special skills and require a small
amount of safety equipment...kinda like a baseball helmet when you play
in a league...it doesn't make people shy away from baseball, because
people think it's especially dangerous...I think you are blowing this
whole thing way out of proportion and taking this bicycle and helmet
thread way too seriously. In the grand scheme of things, it is just not
that important...not worth wringing your hands over, not worth a single
'whoa is me' in my opinion...
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

 

[Sandy]

Qui si parla Campagnolo a écrit :
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> On 1 Aug 2006 06:28:19 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 'Mock people? WTF are you talking about?
>>>
>> Saying the bike is just a toy. That's mocking. It's a toy perhaps
>> for me and my racing buddies and you and your customers, but it's
>> transportation for many people. Vital transporation for some.
>>
>
> Oh please....that's ridiclous...
>
>>> Negative effect of wearing a
>>> helmet? Is wearing a helmet responsible
>>> for less poeple riding? Sorry,
>>> ya lost me...
>>>
>> Yes -- it's making riding out to be especially dangerous and requiring
>> special safety equipment, when in fact it's about as dangerous as lots
>> of other things we do w/o special equipment. Why do that?
>>
>
> Welll, when compared to a lot of things , when compared to walking for
> instance, even if only because you are traveling faster, it IS more
> dangerous. Not 'dangerous', "danger Will Robison!!' dangerous, but more
> dangerous. I think it does take special skills and require a small
> amount of safety equipment...kinda like a baseball helmet when you play
> in a league...it doesn't make people shy away from baseball, because
> people think it's especially dangerous...I think you are blowing this
> whole thing way out of proportion and taking this bicycle and helmet
> thread way too seriously. In the grand scheme of things, it is just not
> that important...not worth wringing your hands over, not worth a single
> 'whoa is me' in my opinion...
>

"woe" - I think you mean
my bike doesn't respond to "whoa"
my daughter's horses do, however