Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 14 Jun 2006 05:13:51 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> It is childish. He said the same sort of thing to me and since I'm a
>> little younger and more foolish, I'm going to see him. But it's a
>> sign of desparation or lack of maturity.
>
>I think the main reason people are often more direct, if I can put it
>that way, online than they are face to face is simply because of the
>lack of eye contact, facial expression and body language which form a
>large part of normal conversation. That's one of the reasons why using
>emoticons might be a good idea.
>
>If you should meet, simply calling him an idiot and walking away would
>indeed be childish.

No way. I'm not interested in a one-on-one discussion. I'm not even
interested in a one-on-one discussion with people I agree with on this
topic, whether online or in person.

>At the very least go for a cup of coffee and have a
>real conversation.
No.

> Each of you may find there's more substance in the
>other than you originally thought.

I'm not holding back anything online. I'm letting my substance out.
I hope he'd do the same.

JT



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

 

[dkahn400]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2006 05:13:51 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >If you should meet, simply calling him an idiot and walking away would
> >indeed be childish.
>
> No way. I'm not interested in a one-on-one discussion. I'm not even
> interested in a one-on-one discussion with people I agree with on this
> topic, whether online or in person.

I don't blame you. You could talk about bikes, or just about the
weather.

> >At the very least go for a cup of coffee and have a
> >real conversation.
> No.

That's entirely up to you of course, but it seems a shame to me. I
understand how you feel. But given that, I can't see the value in
agreeing to meet him in the first place. Don't feel you have anything
to prove because of a stupid jibe made on-line.

> > Each of you may find there's more substance in the
> >other than you originally thought.
>
> I'm not holding back anything online. I'm letting my substance out.
> I hope he'd do the same.

--
Dave...

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 14 Jun 2006 09:01:32 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 14 Jun 2006 05:13:51 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>> >If you should meet, simply calling him an idiot and walking away would
>> >indeed be childish.
>>
>> No way. I'm not interested in a one-on-one discussion. I'm not even
>> interested in a one-on-one discussion with people I agree with on this
>> topic, whether online or in person.
>
>I don't blame you. You could talk about bikes, or just about the
>weather.
>
>> >At the very least go for a cup of coffee and have a
>> >real conversation.
>> No.
>
>That's entirely up to you of course, but it seems a shame to me. I
>understand how you feel. But given that, I can't see the value in
>agreeing to meet him in the first place.

I'm only going to spend a few minutes doing it -- like a bully he
challenged me and another person, and since it won't take much time
I'll do it.

There's probably no value whatsoever to me. He said it's going to be
fun for him.

JT

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Vivian
('[email protected]') wrote:

> OK, I only just got back to the group after months of not having a news
> server and I find this 4000+ thread. Very interesting. I went to
> google to find the original message, but I can't reply to it b/c it's
> more than 30
> days old. So, I'm pasting it here and answering:
>
> I'm looking for three data points here:
>
> 1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
> whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
> the extent of my injuries.

My head struck an object - a granite boulder weighing several tons -
while cycling down a steep hill at 46mph. I was wearing a cotton cap. My
injuries comprised a small graze on my temple, some lacerations to my
legs, and a hyperflexion injury resulting in the collapse of my 12th
thoracic vertebrae. I was not concussed.

Undoubtedly the cotton cap didn't save my life, but this was at least as
serious a crash as any of those which have been related in 'a helmet
saved my life' posts.

A cycling helmet comprises an inch of polystyrene foam, a material whose
properties of strength and impact absorption everyone is familiar with.
You wouldn't expect to put your computer wrapped in its box with an inch
of polystyrene foam out in the middle of the street and have it survive
being hit by a cat at thirty, or forty, or fifty miles per hour. You
know perfectly well that in an impact like that the probability is that
your computer would be destroyed. An inch of polystyrene foam offers
very little protection. Fortunately it doesn't need to, because your
skull is many times stronger. Your head has a diameter of about eight
inches. If you put a helmet on it that increases its diameter by 25%,
but increases its area by 43%. A bigger target is clearly more likely to
be hit.

Furthermore, the human body has exceptionally good reflexes for
protecting the head from serious impact in a fall, as my survival last
year illustrates. But those reflexes are tuned to protect a head the
size of your head. They aren't tuned to protect a head that's 43%
bigger.

People who survive a crash wearing a helmet would probably have survived
if they hadn't been. People who die not wearing a helmet would probably
have died even if they had been. A helmet protects you from minor cuts
and bruises. It isn't designed to - and none of the manufacturers claim
it will - protect you from serious injury or death.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This mind intentionally left blank ]

 

[jtaylor]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Vivian
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > OK, I only just got back to the group after months of not having a news
> > server and I find this 4000+ thread. Very interesting. I went to
> > google to find the original message, but I can't reply to it b/c it's
> > more than 30
> > days old. So, I'm pasting it here and answering:
> >
> > I'm looking for three data points here:
> >
> > 1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
> > whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
> > the extent of my injuries.
>
> My head struck an object - a granite boulder weighing several tons -
> while cycling down a steep hill at 46mph. I was wearing a cotton cap. My
> injuries comprised a small graze on my temple, some lacerations to my
> legs, and a hyperflexion injury resulting in the collapse of my 12th
> thoracic vertebrae. I was not concussed.
>
> Undoubtedly the cotton cap didn't save my life, but this was at least as
> serious a crash as any of those which have been related in 'a helmet
> saved my life' posts.
>
> A cycling helmet comprises an inch of polystyrene foam, a material whose
> properties of strength and impact absorption everyone is familiar with.
> You wouldn't expect to put your computer wrapped in its box with an inch
> of polystyrene foam out in the middle of the street and have it survive
> being hit by a cat at thirty, or forty, or fifty miles per hour. You

Simon!

Meow!

You did mean car, didn't you?

(Though the KE of a 40 mph cat could well break a computer - or a neck, even
if protected by an inch of Magic Foam)


> know perfectly well that in an impact like that the probability is that
> your computer would be destroyed. An inch of polystyrene foam offers
> very little protection. Fortunately it doesn't need to, because your
> skull is many times stronger. Your head has a diameter of about eight
> inches. If you put a helmet on it that increases its diameter by 25%,
> but increases its area by 43%. A bigger target is clearly more likely to
> be hit.
>
> Furthermore, the human body has exceptionally good reflexes for
> protecting the head from serious impact in a fall, as my survival last
> year illustrates. But those reflexes are tuned to protect a head the
> size of your head. They aren't tuned to protect a head that's 43%
> bigger.
>
> People who survive a crash wearing a helmet would probably have survived
> if they hadn't been. People who die not wearing a helmet would probably
> have died even if they had been. A helmet protects you from minor cuts
> and bruises. It isn't designed to - and none of the manufacturers claim
> it will - protect you from serious injury or death.
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> [ This mind intentionally left blank ]
>

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]>typed


> A cycling helmet comprises an inch of polystyrene foam, a material whose
> properties of strength and impact absorption everyone is familiar with.
> You wouldn't expect to put your computer wrapped in its box with an inch
> of polystyrene foam out in the middle of the street and have it survive
> being hit by a cat at thirty, or forty, or fifty miles per hour.

How do you accelerate your cats to that speed? Does the RSPCA know? ;-)

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>, jtaylor
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>, Vivian
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> > OK, I only just got back to the group after months of not having a
>> > news
>> > server and I find this 4000+ thread. Very interesting. I went to
>> > google to find the original message, but I can't reply to it b/c
>> > it's more than 30
>> > days old. So, I'm pasting it here and answering:
>> >
>> > I'm looking for three data points here:
>> >
>> > 1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist,
>> > etc.) whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet
>> > lessened the extent of my injuries.
>>
>> My head struck an object - a granite boulder weighing several tons -
>> while cycling down a steep hill at 46mph. I was wearing a cotton cap.
>> My injuries comprised a small graze on my temple, some lacerations to
>> my legs, and a hyperflexion injury resulting in the collapse of my
>> 12th thoracic vertebrae. I was not concussed.
>>
>> Undoubtedly the cotton cap didn't save my life, but this was at least
>> as serious a crash as any of those which have been related in 'a
>> helmet saved my life' posts.
>>
>> A cycling helmet comprises an inch of polystyrene foam, a material
>> whose properties of strength and impact absorption everyone is
>> familiar with. You wouldn't expect to put your computer wrapped in its
>> box with an inch of polystyrene foam out in the middle of the street
>> and have it survive being hit by a cat at thirty, or forty, or fifty
>> miles per hour. You
>
> Simon!
>
> Meow!
>
> You did mean car, didn't you?

Errrrr... yes, actually.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Good grief, I can remember when England won the Ashes.

 

[[email protected]]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]>typed
>
>
> > A cycling helmet comprises an inch of polystyrene foam, a material whose
> > properties of strength and impact absorption everyone is familiar with.
> > You wouldn't expect to put your computer wrapped in its box with an inch
> > of polystyrene foam out in the middle of the street and have it survive
> > being hit by a cat at thirty, or forty, or fifty miles per hour.
>
> How do you accelerate your cats to that speed? Does the RSPCA know? ;-)
>

Every cat launched is a silent cry for compassion.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:49:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:


>Interesting to see the original post again after all the nuttiness that
>followed. (Perhaps "survey" would have been a better term than "poll", due
>to pedantic blowhardedness.) Funny, I don't recall any replies to that 3rd
>category! (Second- and third-party anecdotes excepted.)

Interesting to be reminded how flawed the setup of the "survey" or
"poll" was -- it's designed to confirm Ozark's beliefs, not gain a
real understanding of what's going on out there.

JT

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

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:49:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Interesting to see the original post again after all the nuttiness
>> that followed. (Perhaps "survey" would have been a better term than
>> "poll", due to pedantic blowhardedness.) Funny, I don't recall any
>> replies to that 3rd category! (Second- and third-party anecdotes
>> excepted.)
>
> Interesting to be reminded how flawed the setup of the "survey" or
> "poll" was -- it's designed to confirm Ozark's beliefs, not gain a
> real understanding of what's going on out there.

It's certainly not a scientific study, nor is it portrayed that way. And,
while my first reaction was posted as "NOooooooooooooooo" (be sure to count
the 'o's and correct me if I'm off) since those /other/ threads had gone on
and on and on long enough, he did ask for three distinct categories of
first-hand accounts -- two of which /counter/ what you assume are his
beliefs. (In case you feign ignorance: lids no benefit, and lids doing
harm.)

But don't let facts or objectivity get in the way of your compulsive need to
heckle, pester and criticize. I mean, why change NOW?

 

[Mike Causer]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:08:54 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> Simon Brooke <[email protected]>typed
>
>> A cycling helmet comprises an inch of polystyrene foam, a material whose
>> properties of strength and impact absorption everyone is familiar with.
>> You wouldn't expect to put your computer wrapped in its box with an inch
>> of polystyrene foam out in the middle of the street and have it survive
>> being hit by a cat at thirty, or forty, or fifty miles per hour.
>
> How do you accelerate your cats to that speed? Does the RSPCA know? ;-)

Either a growling Bull Terrier, or a whole roast ckicken being placed on
an unguarded table? Mach 1 can be achieved with Bull Terrier behind and
roast chicken ahead.


Mike