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

[[email protected]]

Sandy wrote:
> 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

How 'bout saying "whoa" to all the cries of "woe" regarding helmet use?

 

[[email protected]]

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.
>
> > 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?
>

There are many things that discourage greater bicycle use in the US:
hostile, ill-educated drivers, poorly designed roads, a lack of
bicycle "parking", snobby, CF-riding, lycra-clad "roadies" who ignore
traffic rules, etc., etc.

IMO, helmet use is way, way, way down the list....

 

[Sojourner]

[email protected] wrote:

>
> There are many things that discourage greater bicycle use in the US:
> hostile, ill-educated drivers, poorly designed roads, a lack of
> bicycle "parking", snobby, CF-riding, lycra-clad "roadies" who ignore
> traffic rules, etc., etc.
>
> IMO, helmet use is way, way, way down the list....

Hell, its not even ON the list.

The major thing that discourages people from riding bike more often in
the US is sheer laziness.

A major (not THE major, but one of...) factor in discouraging continued
bike riding by some who take it up is the loud-mouthed snobbery of a
significant minority of the cycling crowd who measure one's worth by
whether or not you're wearing the proper cycling uniform ($150
skin-tight jerseys), who made your bike, what components are on it and
whether or not you know or care, whether or not you count cadence, pull
on the upstroke (which requires clipping in), know how to ride in a
paceline (or even know what a paceline IS) and etc etc etc.

Helmets, yes or no, don't factor into it at all.

Sojourner

I once listened to a bunch of lycra-clad wannabe racers sitting around
after a ride (that, as usual, I got dropped on in the first 5 blocks,
but hey, I rode past several of them later on the uphills) complaining
about the weight of the frames of their bikes. Most of these guys had
at least 20 lbs they could stand to lose, but they were sitting there
talking about drilling HOLES in their frames to "lighten" them (by a
matter of milligrams!).

So I just offhandedly said, "Drill holes in your water bottles, that'll
lighten the load quite a bit". Which a couple thought was a real good
idea - until it FINALLY dawned on them what the consequences of
drilling a hole in your water bottle would be.

I may be slow on the downhills, but at least I'm not slow upstairs!
LOL!

 

[Bill Sornson]

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?

I'm guessing that John was /really/ good at Dodge Ball as a kid. LOL

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> 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.

Think away..I have lived and ridden all over the US, while in the
USNavy...and ya know, not many people ride in Tampa or Phoenix, for
instance.
>
> 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.

Think what ya like, I can only describe what I see here and other
places I have lived. In Denver, transportation does not 'trump' leisure
time riding on a bicycle. Would like it to be like the Neth\erlands,
where most eveybody lives, works and retires in a smaller community,
where bike paths are as important as roads for cars, but it isn't so
and it isn't going to be so...so fretting about it doesn't help it. But
once again, how Do you get the populace onto a bicycle in Memphis,
barring a world wide crisis??
>
> JT
>
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

 

[Bill Sornson]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> 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...

Welcome to arguing with JFT.

>>> 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...

One last time: WHERE WERE YOU THREE MONTHS AGO?!? LOL

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sandy wrote:


>> my bike doesn't respond to "whoa"
>> my daughter's horses do, however

> How 'bout saying "whoa" to all the cries of "woe" regarding helmet
> use?

Whoa, whoa, whoa the boat?

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> 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.
>
Then for DD and you-don't wear one...why somebody says something about
helmet use bugs you, I don't understand. WGAS anyway. If yer gonna
worry about what somebody says about something bicycle, make a stance
on BS marketing about bike 'stuff'...or just ride your bike, it feels
good ya know. I'm out-
> ****************************

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> 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.

And you think those people /shouldn't/ wear helmets? Why?

> 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.

One could argue that people who ride 1-2 hours a day for transportation or
4-5 hours a day for livelihood need lids even /more/ than people who just go
out for an hour or three on Sunday afternoon.

Short Sig Sorni

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:42:53 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> 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?
>
>I'm guessing that John was /really/ good at Dodge Ball as a kid.

What does that mean?

JT

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 1 Aug 2006 08:48:57 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>Then for DD and you-don't wear one...why somebody says something about
>helmet use bugs you, I don't understand.

Do you believe that statistic above? If you're in the cycling industry
and you believe and repeat that stat, you're irresponsible.

JT


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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:53:17 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> 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.
>
>And you think those people /shouldn't/ wear helmets?

Did I say that? I hope that they actually look at helmet use
critically, and not wear them just because of false statements about
helmets or unrealistic fears of cycling or because some dope says that
all serious cyclists wear helmets so helmets must be a good idea.

And I don't think false statements should be made about helmets.

JT

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

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> 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?
>
> I'm guessing that John was /really/ good at Dodge Ball as a kid. LOL


Or really *bad* at dodge ball (as in "got hit in the head a few times
too often").

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Hell and High Water <[email protected]>:
>'...helmets are 85 to 88% effective in mitigating head and brain=20
>injuries...'

That's TRT comparing the then population of helmet wearers - the offspring
of suburban yuppies riding on bike paths in gated communities - with
inner-city kids often riding unlit and/or drunk at night.

They also found a similar reduction in knee injuries; go figure.

Even TRT admit the 85% figure is bogus these days. Do a _little_ research
before you spout, eh?
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Hell and High Water <[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.

No, it isn't. Both the impact resistance of helmets and skulls are pretty
well-known. (Did yours squash, not crack?)

The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so makes
extremely effective use of its material and is made of a material very
effective for the task; and it's much heavier than a helmet. It is
therefore obviously much tougher even absent measurements of the energy
needed to crack it.

As I say; you suffered non-fatal injuries to the rest of the body; why
assume the injuries to the very toughest part would have been fatal?
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[Bill Sornson]

David Damerell wrote:

> The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so makes
> extremely effective use of its material and is made of a material very
> effective for the task;

So are feet. Would you undertake trail running unshod?

> and it's much heavier than a helmet.

But what about those oppressive ROTATIONAL FORCES exerted by that relatively
lightweight (by your own admission) lid?

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>
> > The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so makes
> > extremely effective use of its material and is made of a material very
> > effective for the task;
>
> So are feet. Would you undertake trail running unshod?
>
> > and it's much heavier than a helmet.
>
> But what about those oppressive ROTATIONAL FORCES exerted by that relatively
> lightweight (by your own admission) lid?

Damerell seems to be saying that, given that the impact was not
sufficient to be fatal or cause a skull fracture, the OP may as well
have wacked his head uncovered as helmeted.

Perhaps Damerall would like to be the "uncovered" control in a little
test of this premise?

 

[Dane Buson]

Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>
>> The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so makes
>> extremely effective use of its material and is made of a material very
>> effective for the task;
>
> So are feet. Would you undertake trail running unshod?

Errr, what's wrong with that? I wouldn't do it, but evidently quite a
few people do:

http://www.barefootrunner.org/
http://www.barefootrunner.org/links.htm

Wasn't there recently a few African runners winning marathon's unshod?

I know the 1960 Gold medal winner Abibe Bikila won without them...

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
It typically takes 25-30 gallons of petrol/diesel to fully-consume an
average-sized body under ideal conditions. That I am conversant with
this level of detail should serve as an indication of why the wise man
does not ask me questions about MS-Windows. --Tanuki the Raccoon-dog

 

[Bill Sornson]

Dane Buson wrote:
> Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>
>>> The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so
>>> makes extremely effective use of its material and is made of a
>>> material very effective for the task;
>>
>> So are feet. Would you undertake trail running unshod?
>
> Errr, what's wrong with that? I wouldn't do it, but evidently quite a
> few people do:
>
> http://www.barefootrunner.org/
> http://www.barefootrunner.org/links.htm

Quick perusal didn't show any TRAIL running, but the question remains:
would YOU run trails barefooted?

> Wasn't there recently a few African runners winning marathon's unshod?
>
> I know the 1960 Gold medal winner Abibe Bikila won without them...

Don't doubt it for a second.

Would you climb a ladder with small round steps barefoot? It all has to do
with Damnitall's point that the skull has evolved to handle things like bike
crashes. Same true of...baseballs thrown at 95 mph? (American) Football
collisions? Etc. etc. etc...

Off for a rainy day ride, Bill S.

 

[Dane Buson]

Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> David Damerell wrote:
>>>
>>>> The skull has been subject to millenia of selection pressure, so
>>>> makes extremely effective use of its material and is made of a
>>>> material very effective for the task;
>>>
>>> So are feet. Would you undertake trail running unshod?
>>
>> Errr, what's wrong with that? I wouldn't do it, but evidently quite a
>> few people do:
>>
>> http://www.barefootrunner.org/
>> http://www.barefootrunner.org/links.htm
>
> Quick perusal didn't show any TRAIL running, but the question remains:
> would YOU run trails barefooted?

Well, I wouldn't run trails or anywhere else shod or unshod. There's a
reason people invented bicycles. Sheesh. What's the difference between
'trail' running and other types of running? [1]
>
>> Wasn't there recently a few African runners winning marathon's unshod?
>>
>> I know the 1960 Gold medal winner Abibe Bikila won without them...
>
> Don't doubt it for a second.
>
> Would you climb a ladder with small round steps barefoot?

I have in the past, not that I particularly recommend the practice.

> It all has to do with Damnitall's point that the skull has evolved to
> handle things like bike crashes. Same true of...baseballs thrown at
> 95 mph? (American) Football collisions? Etc. etc. etc...

Which reminds me very much of this possibly aprocryphal story [2]:

http://www.kokusai-senshu-tokukai.org/heroes_or_zeros.htm

"A Tennessee high school football player was paralyzed from the chest
down this weekend when, frustrated by a close loss in a state playoff
game, he put on his helmet, sprinted several feet, and butted headfirst
into a wall outside the locker room." What drove this A student to trade
his sensibilities for life in a wheelchair? Why did he allow football,
nothing more than a game, to become much more than a game? The answer:
the young man couldn't stand the thought of losing. His principal said,
"He was a highly competitive person. There was just no place for second
in his life."

It smacks of Risk Compensation to me personally. I doubt somehow he
would have taken a run at the wall if he didn't have the helmet on...

> Off for a rainy day ride, Bill S.

Always a good idea. It's sunny and 69 degrees, and I'm planning on
going cycling from downtown with some gentlemen I know tonight. It
looks a fine day for riding indeed.

[1] I'm not being cute, I'm genuinely ignorant of any differences.
[2] I've heard it before, but it's not on snopes, who knows.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
After sifting through the overwritten remaining blocks of Luke's home
directory, Luke and PDP-1 sped away from /u/lars, across the surface of the
Winchester riding Luke's flying read/write head. PDP-1 had Luke stop at the
edge of the cylinder overlooking /usr/spool/uucp.
"Unix-to-Unix Copy Program;" said PDP-1. "You will never find a more
wretched hive of bugs and flamers. We must be cautious."
-- DECWARS