Re: I crash into religion



Sorni wrote:
>
>
> You and Tony AGAIN miss the point.


That's because they are trying to jam their own point in.

Which makes these threads exceedingly tiresome. For someone who
seemingly touts the economy of words, you sure use a damn lot of them
to say the some things ad infinitum, over the course of a freakin' huge
number of aggregate posts.

That, and the weird *****ing about snipping, and you are more verbose
than Carl, without any of the endearing wit.

Dude, some advice you can take or leave, as you see fit:

Wear your lid as you see fit. [1]

STFU about it in usenet, where no profit comes from discussing it
(other than to puff the egos of the AHZs.)

HAND,

E.P.

[1] I read the studies, seen the data, and still wear my lid. For no
other reason than it makes my wife happy to see me wear it when I climb
on and click in.
 
Sorni wrote:

>>A simile? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

>
>
> "n : a figure of speech that expresses a resemblance between things of
> different kinds (usually formed with `like' or `as')
>
> The process of deciding whether to wear a helmet /is like/ (or /similar to/)
> the process of deciding whether to use a seatbelt.


My point exactly.

R.
 
> [1] I read the studies

No. You haven't. Reading the studies would require an investment of many.
many hours and several hundred pounds.
 
Mark Thompson wrote:
> > [1] I read the studies

>
> No. You haven't. Reading the studies would require an investment of many.
> many hours and several hundred pounds.


PEDANT ALERT!

OK, Mr. Pedantic - I've read the ones publically available, linked or
referenced by those in this newsgroup, some of which cost money to read
UNLESS you have a university PubMed account, and can get them that way.

Now, do you feel better? Superior in some way?

Good for you.

E.P.
 
Mark Thompson wrote:
> > (a) His blood alcohol level was tested at 1.87 g/l. A level of
> > 1.75 g/l is the equivalent of 9 shots of whiskey drunk in rapid
> > succession:<http://tinyurl.com/rofj5>. Plus, there were traces of
> > prescription medication that interacts with alcohol found in his blood.
> > Given the videos of him leaving the hotel to get into the car, and the
> > fact that he could find the door to it, I find this all way beyond
> > implausible.

>
> What, he sinks the equivalent of 3.5 pints of beer and you think he can't
> walk? I can do that and I'm a southerner, you wuss.


Your ability to hold your alcohol is not as great as you imagine. For
example, your calculation is wrong:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage>

In addition to that addition, he had prescription drugs in there too.r
 
41 wrote:
> Mark Thompson wrote:


> > What, he sinks the equivalent of 3.5 pints of beer and you think he can't
> > walk? I can do that and I'm a southerner, you wuss.

>
> Your ability to hold your alcohol is not as great as you imagine. For
> example, your calculation is wrong:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage>


So he cannot know whether he can still walk after 3.5 pints?[1]
Or a bottle of good wine?

The man was a well built middle aged frenchman. It would have been most
amazing if he could not down a bottle of wine and still appear lucid
and walk in a straight line.

...d

[1] I rarely drink, so that much would have me definitely feeling
somewhat inebriated, probably to the extent of the nose test[2]. I'd be
unsure about my ability to ride home safely but could easily walk the
bike. For a habitual drinker, the effects would be barely
distinguishable.

[2] When the end of my nose goes numb it really is time to stop
drinking if I want to get home under my own steam without incident.
 
Sorni wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> p.k. wrote:

>
>>> Do you have a smoke alarm in your house?

>
>> Yes.

>
>>> Why not in your car?

>
>> I'd never thought about it before now, but I think the fact that I
>> spend roughly 10 minutes in the car in a typical week and rather
>> more than that in the house, including roughly 8 hours per day
>> unconscious, and at any time with considerable portions of the
>> house not directly visible, would be influencing factors.

>
> Well, if I start going for walks (or taking showers) for 4-5 hours at
> 15-45 mph in fast-moving traffic -- even without 1/2" wide feet and
> at the mercy of mechanical devices like cables, chains, bars 'n posts
> -- then I might lid up for that, too.


I assure you that it's very simple to get distracted, have a blackout, get a
cramp in the calf or something similar at the top of a flight of stairs and
find yourself needing to dissipate a very similar amount of energy to the
amounts involved in a bike crash.

I have known people who have found themselves in that situation.
--
Ambrose
 
> Your ability to hold your alcohol is not as great as you imagine.

Akshurly it is <hic> for I am a student.

For
> example, your calculation is wrong:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage>


Bggr. Okay, how many pints (568ml) of 4.5% BEER equals the amount of
alcohol wot you said (nine shots of 40% spirit, I presumed 25ml measures,
but not sure what they serve in France)?

> In addition to that addition, he had prescription drugs in there too.r


Do we know how much, of what type, and most importantly whether this would
have had a significant effect?
 
David Martin wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > Mark Thompson wrote:

>
> > > What, he sinks the equivalent of 3.5 pints of beer and you think he can't
> > > walk? I can do that and I'm a southerner, you wuss.

> >
> > Your ability to hold your alcohol is not as gre at as you imagine. For
> > example, your calculation is wrong:
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage>

>
> So he cannot know whether he can still walk after 3.5 pints?[1]


I think you missed the point. That calculation is wrong. It is not 3.5
pints.
 
Mark Thompson wrote:
> > Your ability to hold your alcohol is not as great as you imagine.

>
> Akshurly it is <hic> for I am a student.
>
> For
> > example, your calculation is wrong:
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage>

>
> Bggr. Ok ay, how many pints (568ml) of 4.5% BEER equals the amount of
> alcohol wot you said (nine shots of 40% spirit


According to the guidelines, it should be 4.5 pints, or 72 oz. If you
check by doing the calculation the other way, assuming a total blood
volume of about 6 litres, you get about 5 pints. Plus, they have to be
drunk in rapid succession. Most people would have difficulty simply
downing that much water.


> > In addition to that addition, he had prescription drugs in there too.r

>
> Do we know how much, of what type,


I don't but I believe the coroner does. I do know that he also had a
very high, I believe it was carbon monoxide content in his blood, which
could not be explained by the circumstances of the accident (air bag
explosion etc.).

>and most importantly whether this would
> have had a significant effect?


For the carbon monoxide (or whatever gas it was, if I got that wrong),
yes. The levels were very high and should have caused death or
unsconsciousness. For the prescription drugs, it was said so but I
didn't see those figures.
 
On 14 May 2006 14:43:31 -0700, 41 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>> > Your ability to hold your alcohol is not as great as you imagine.

>>
>> Akshurly it is <hic> for I am a student.
>>
>> For
>> > example, your calculation is wrong:
>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage>

>>
>> Bggr. Ok ay, how many pints (568ml) of 4.5% BEER equals the amount of
>> alcohol wot you said (nine shots of 40% spirit

>
> According to the guidelines, it should be 4.5 pints, or 72 oz.


No, no. 72 fl. oz is just over 3.5 pints as we are saying.
A pint of water is a pound and a quarter (ie. 20 fl oz.)

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
davek wrote:
> f
> I wouldn't have time to read a "discussion" running to several thousand
> posts, even if I /wanted/ to read the same old arguments again and again
> and again...
>
> When was the last time someone contributed something /new/ to a helmet
> debate?


Depends what you call "new."

This article http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf was never
mentioned in a previous helmet thread.

Strictly speaking, it's not brand new. I read it a couple months ago,
IIRC. But I doubt most people did, so it was new to them.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Richard wrote:
> davek wrote:
>> When was the last time someone contributed something /new/ to a helmet
>> debate?

>
> But how do you know that nothing new has been contributed, if you don't
> read it? Not only that, but if you've never read them before ...
> then it /is/ all new. It certainly was to me, the first time I (as
> a helmet wearer) saw a helmet debate crop up on urc c. 1996.


I too think this thread has shed some light, along with all the heat.

It is clearer to me why some people continue to wear helmets for all
cycling, and I am encouraged that there are plenty of habitual wearers
who are against compulsion.

I have also learnt how people attempt to counter tha argument in my .sig!

Hopefully some lurkers wil have learnt just how limited the protection
offered by cycle helmets is, and how safe cycling is compared to how
it is portrayed.

But I think it's time to move on now.

Colin McKenzie
> R.



--
In Britain, there is less justification for wearing cycling helmets
than there is for wearing walking helmets.
 
> According to the guidelines, it should be 4.5 pints, or 72 oz. If you
> check by doing the calculation the other way, assuming a total blood
> volume of about 6 litres, you get about 5 pints. Plus, they have to be
> drunk in rapid succession. Most people would have difficulty simply
> downing that much water.


Can you explain the problems with my maths - I'm confused.

Spirits:
9x25ml=225ml
At 40%ABV that's 90ml of alcohol

BEER
3.5x568ml=1988ml
At 4.5% (what I was drinking earlier) that's 89.46ml of alcohol.

I can drink in excess of that amount of alcohol and can walk about
without staggering or otherwise appearing drunk.

Blood volume:
6 litres? Midget! I've got around 9.5 litres in me[1]. I strongly
suspect the driver had more blood than you assume too.

Stomach volume:
Drinking games show that my stomach can take and hold over three pints in
the space of 5 minutes, tho if I'm going to test the '9 shots
unbelievable' theory then I'd probably just sink 9 shots.

I'll do it tomorrow on an empty stomach, walking round the block at 5,
10, 20 and 30 minutes. Will report findings.



[1] <www.utahblood.org/facts/chart.htm> and
<www.fbsblood.org/html/education/inyou.html>
 
> PEDANT ALERT!

Apologies, for some reason* I thought it was Sorni wot said that.


* BEER
 
Mark Thompson wrote:
>> PEDANT ALERT!

>
> Apologies, for some reason* I thought it was Sorni wot said that.


Said what?

> * BEER


OK then. (Who are you, anyway?)
 
Mark Thompson wrote:

> Blood volume:
> 6 litres? Midget! I've got around 9.5 litres in me[1]. I strongly
> suspect the driver had more blood than you assume too.


> [1] <www.utahblood.org/facts/chart.htm> and


Interesting chart, but I note that it doesn't get anywhere close to 9.5
litres (about 21 pints).
So are you around 8' tall and 450 lbs.?

I do wonder how they got the data on blood volume of individuals who
are 6' 2" tall and weigh only 30 lbs.
 
On 14 May 2006 17:32:26 -0700, "peter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>> Blood volume:
>> 6 litres? Midget! I've got around 9.5 litres in me[1]. I strongly
>> suspect the driver had more blood than you assume too.

>
>> [1] <www.utahblood.org/facts/chart.htm> and

>
>Interesting chart, but I note that it doesn't get anywhere close to 9.5
>litres (about 21 pints).
>So are you around 8' tall and 450 lbs.?
>
>I do wonder how they got the data on blood volume of individuals who
>are 6' 2" tall and weigh only 30 lbs.


Dear Peter,

It'sss sssssimple . . .

http://www.vpi.com/8VPICareSheets/Pythons/BorneoShortTailedPython/BorneoShortTailedPythonDesc.htm

Pleassssse note my other common name.

Cheerssssss,

Python breitensteini
 
Andy Leighton <[email protected]>typed


> On 14 May 2006 14:43:31 -0700, 41 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Thompson wrote:
> >> > Your ability to hold your alcohol is not as great as you imagine.
> >>
> >> Akshurly it is <hic> for I am a student.
> >>
> >> For
> >> > example, your calculation is wrong:
> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage>
> >>
> >> Bggr. Ok ay, how many pints (568ml) of 4.5% BEER equals the amount of
> >> alcohol wot you said (nine shots of 40% spirit

> >
> > According to the guidelines, it should be 4.5 pints, or 72 oz.


> No, no. 72 fl. oz is just over 3.5 pints as we are saying.
> A pint of water is a pound and a quarter (ie. 20 fl oz.)


US pints have 16 US fluid ounces (29.6ml) = 473ml
UK pints have 20 UK fluid ounces (28.35ml) = 568ml

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>> According to the guidelines, it should be 4.5 pints, or 72 oz. If you
>> check by doing the calculation the other way, assuming a total blood
>> volume of about 6 litres, you get about 5 pints. Plus, they have to be
>> drunk in rapid succession. Most people would have difficulty simply
>> downing that much water.

>
> Can you explain the problems with my maths - I'm confused.


I can - he's leftpondian :)

(and I have no difficulty whatsoever in believing that the man could down
that much alcohol - I've met sufficient numbers of people who can, and I
lead a fairly sheltered life.)

cheers,
clive
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
10
Views
448
D
J
Replies
10
Views
471
D
J
Replies
4
Views
402
Cycling Equipment
John Forrest Tomlinson
J
J
Replies
4
Views
427
UK and Europe
John Forrest Tomlinson
J
J
Replies
3
Views
358
S
J
Replies
3
Views
400
S
J
Replies
3
Views
375
O
J
Replies
3
Views
368
UK and Europe
Ozark Bicycle
O
S
Replies
371
Views
7K
Cycling Equipment
Espressopithecus (Java Man)
E
S
Replies
371
Views
6K
UK and Europe
Espressopithecus (Java Man)
E