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

[Sojourner]

> 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]

Sticks, stones, thorns, animal poo..... well you might see animal poo
on pavement anyway, but you get the drift.

Sojourner

 

[Dane Buson]

Sojourner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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]
>
> Sticks, stones, thorns, animal poo..... well you might see animal poo
> on pavement anyway, but you get the drift.

Ick. So not much different than riding on the road here in Washington. [1]

Looking at the google, there are quite a few hits for '"trail running"
barefoot'. So, evidently there are plenty of crazy people out there
who do this sort of thing.

OffTopic: It's oddly... hypnotic (SFW) [2]:
http://www.netnebulo.hu/loituma_clock.swf

[1] I'm only partially joking. Blackberry is invasive and pervasive
here, I've ridden across brambles on the road plenty of times
here.[4]
[2] Safe For Work [3]
[3] Unless you're company has some strange policy about leeks.
[4] Yes, all you goathead thorn sufferers, I know I live in a virtual
paradise compared to you. Quiet.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"Nobody gets out of the Bermuda Triangle.
Not even for lunch."

 

[Robin Hubert]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> 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.

Cheap and easy or ... necessary.

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

Robin Hubert

 

[Pat Lamb]

David Damerell wrote:
> 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?

As I understand it, the right figure is something like 61%, and that's
statistically insignificant. Do you have a citation I can use to make
this argument? Web pages are all very fine for spreading information,
but a journal article (or letter) wins arguments.

Pat

 

[jtaylor]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> how many times has the average baseball player been hit
> by a fastball (not a slow curve or change-up) *IN THE HEAD* in his
lifetime?
>
> Do you have any idea how rare it is?
>

No. Do you?

Please tell us.

Would someone perhaps, playing baseball for 450 years 24 hours a day be
likely to be hit more than once?

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:25:04 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Even allowing for /your/ false premise (inserting probability into
>simple adaptation), how many times has the average baseball player been hit
>by a fastball (not a slow curve or change-up) *IN THE HEAD* in his lifetime?

I may be wrong on that one, as I don't know. Do you have any idea?

More importantly, do you have any idea how often the average cyclist
will have a head injury that's more than a scrape but mild enough to
be prevented by a helmet?

If not, shut up.

JT


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

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:25:04 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Even allowing for /your/ false premise (inserting probability into
>> simple adaptation), how many times has the average baseball player
>> been hit by a fastball (not a slow curve or change-up) *IN THE HEAD*
>> in his lifetime?
>
> I may be wrong on that one, as I don't know. Do you have any idea?
>
> More importantly, do you have any idea how often the average cyclist
> will have a head injury that's more than a scrape but mild enough to
> be prevented by a helmet?

Well, it's happened to me twice and to a number of fellow cyclists I know,
so it can't be THAT "exceedingly rare". (Your question, of course, is a
Catch-22 -- look closely and you'll get it.)

> If not, shut up.

Your dodging (AND deleting! LOL ) the question is noted.

Do you think batting helmets are unnecessary? Yes or no? (After all, the
human head is so /evolved/ and all...)

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:49:07 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The POINT is that people wear adaptive and protective equipment for all
>kinds of activities. Damnitall said the human skull has evolved to such
>resilience that a cycling helmet is unnecessary.

The real point is that is protection that we know helps because the
problem occurs often and we can easily judge it's effectiveness. And
there is protection for remote events that are unlikely to occur.

> So I asked about batting
>helmets -- is the head similarly impervious to a strike (no pun) from a
>fastball?

Is you back impervious to a bullet?

Are you fingers impervious to a car door closing on them?

And on the batting helments thing -- I said one thing so far -- that I
don't know the odds of that sort of injury occuring.

Here's another thing -- I greatly object to people who equate what is
reasonable in atheletic competion with what is reasonable in daily
life. And like it or not, cycling is a part of some people's daily
lives.

You may think that people out commuting on their bike in street
clothes are not real "cyclists" but from your perspective on helmet us
in San Diego to your using the Tour of France as evidence to your
using images from the governing body of bike *racing* in the UK as
evidence of the extent of helmet us in that country, it's clear you
are one of those sporty/enthusiast cyclists who is caught up in the
gear and the plumage to show the world that you take things seriously.
And that's a messed up attitude that is too comon in the cycling
world.

JT


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

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:49:07 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The POINT is that people wear adaptive and protective equipment for
>> all kinds of activities. Damnitall said the human skull has evolved
>> to such resilience that a cycling helmet is unnecessary.
>
> The real point is that

What's with this latest habit of replying twice to everything? First one
just a rough draft?

You've proven your true nature yet again; all future remarks considered
accordingly.

 

[jtaylor]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[for the benefit of those new to usenet and the method of indicating quotes,
the portion of this post below prefixed by ONE quote mark (">") was written
by "Sorni"]

>
> The POINT is that people wear adaptive and protective equipment for all
> kinds of activities. Damnitall said the human skull has evolved to such
> resilience that a cycling helmet is unnecessary. So I asked about
batting
> helmets -- is the head similarly impervious to a strike (no pun) from a
> fastball?
>

But how likely is such an incident?

With major league teams getting somewhere between 30 and 50 HBP's a season
(sometimes more), it seems much more likely than a cyclist getting a major
head injury - after all, we know that cyclists deaths (many of which are not
caused by head injury) occur roughly once per 450 years of cycling 24 hours
a day non-stop.

Impervious or not, if the cyclist's head essentially never gets hit, there
is no need for a helmet. If you are a baseball player instead, there may be
a case for such.

If you believe that there is, perhaps you could add to your letters to the
editors and your local legal representatives (you HAVE been writing these,
haven't you, as you claim to be against MHL's even though your state has
one) requesting that at the same time as they repeal the cyclist MHL they
institute one for all baseball players.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:57:04 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What's with this latest habit of replying twice to everything? First one
>just a rough draft?

I'm commenting on two different aspects of what you said.

JT


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

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Pat Lamb <[email protected]>:
>As I understand it, the right figure is something like 61%, and that's
>statistically insignificant. Do you have a citation I can use to make
>this argument? Web pages are all very fine for spreading information,
>but a journal article (or letter) wins arguments.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ is as full of citations as an egg is of meat.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Gloucesterday, July.