Ryders Eyewear Injuries

[alienator]

These sound like magic glasses Just kidding...So if the glasses broke her fall, as you suggest, then why are there scratches on the edge of the helmet? Scratches on the plastic surface which is far tougher than skin. but no scratches on the skin far more delicated than plastic.

I'm sorry, put your point is reaching the edge of absurdity. The simplest answer is usually the best one. You are stretching the boundaries of probability while kindly hinting at the fact I'm not telling the truth as well.

Cindy related to me she felt the helmet hit the ground, I saw the helmet plainly hit the ground, the dirt and scratches on the helmet are totally consistent with are statements. Cindy also testified that her cheek brushed the ground. Once again, 100% consistent with the physical evidence. I was shocked to see the damage caused by such a silly slip.

You may not have to agree with our lawsuit, but you seem to really be reaching hard to undermine the veracity of our claims. Are you somehow under the impression we are trying to get rich from Cindy's misfortune? Is this the root cause for your skepticism?

I contacted Ryders a number of times, asking only for them to help with our medical expenses. They flatly declined and welcomed us to file suit and serve them at their offices in Canada. If they had responded, this thread and our website would not be there and you could be out riding your bikes

Well, what you call absurd is what people with scientific, engineering, and medical backgrounds call logical.

When I looked closer at Cindy's photo, the real problem was revealed. Look........

 

[Ryders Injuries]

Well, what you call absurd is what people with scientific, engineering, and medical backgrounds call logical.

When I looked closer at Cindy's photo, the real problem was revealed. Look........

Your're right, instead why not call the victim, the eyewitness and everyone else at the scene an opportunistic liar? Let's lean on the testimony of disengaged third parties a thousand miles away instead. Then let's show the caliber of our the degreed professionalism by creating a demeaning image of the poor women for all to laugh at. I think you plead our case, alienator.

I live in Branson Mo where thousands of engineers and physicians spend their hard earned money on timeshares

Do you really consider getting your medical bills covered having dollar signs in your eyes? You call us dramatic? (Whoa hun, we're back to where we were before the accident, yee haw, we're loaded! Note: Statement to be accompanied by taking a big swig from a brown jug and firing several shotguns in the air!)

 

[artmichalek]

These sound like magic glasses Just kidding...So if the glasses broke her fall, as you suggest, then why are there scratches on the edge of the helmet? Scratches on the plastic surface which is far tougher than skin. but no scratches on the skin far more delicated than plastic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "delicated", but on contact with an abrasive surface, skin is capable of far more shear deformation without damage than plastic. I've already told you why there are scratches on the edge of the helmet. Kind of ironic to hear you lecturing us on ignoring things we don't want to hear.

I'm sorry, put your point is reaching the edge of absurdity. The simplest answer is usually the best one. You are stretching the boundaries of probability while kindly hinting at the fact I'm not telling the truth as well.

You've repeatedly dodged the points about scratches on the outside of the sunglasses, and propper fitting of the helmet. (which is unfortunately the simplest answer)

Cindy related to me she felt the helmet hit the ground, I saw the helmet plainly hit the ground, the dirt and scratches on the helmet are totally consistent with are statements. Cindy also testified that her cheek brushed the ground. Once again, 100% consistent with the physical evidence. I was shocked to see the damage caused by such a silly slip.

You may not have to agree with our lawsuit, but you seem to really be reaching hard to undermine the veracity of our claims. Are you somehow under the impression we are trying to get rich from Cindy's misfortune? Is this the root cause for your skepticism?

The root cause of my skepticism is having been in numerous crashes myself. I have in fact completely shredded the side of a helmet without my sunglasses touching the ground. If the helmet in this case did in fact contact the ground first, it was not propperly fitted, and shifted at the slightest touch. If this is the case, it certainly isn't Ryders' fault that you don't know how to put on a helmet.

 

[alienator]

Your're right, instead why not call the victim, the eyewitness and everyone else at the scene an opportunistic liar? Let's lean on the testimony of disengaged third parties a thousand miles away instead. Then let's show the caliber of our the degreed professionalism by creating a demeaning image of the poor women for all to laugh at. I think you plead our case, alienator.

I never called anyone a liar. I am saying that the logic you're trying to use doesn't fit with physics, engineering, or the kinematics of trauma. As for the demeaning image of the "poor woman." How is she a "poor woman?" The injuries look minor, at best. That you push for money and try to ascribe blame in such an accident speaks volumes about you and your unwillingness to accept responsibility for things that might happen while participating in risky activities.

I live in Branson Mo where thousands of engineers and physicians spend their hard earned money on timeshares

Well, heck. If that isn't evidence of something, I don't know what is. Wow. So, like, you've seen engineers and physicians. Do they look, like, cool? Sorry, buddy, but there are lots of idiots that live near engineers and physicians.

Do you really consider getting your medical bills covered having dollar signs in your eyes? You call us dramatic? (Whoa hun, we're back to where we were before the accident, yee haw, we're loaded! Note: Statement to be accompanied by taking a big swig from a brown jug and firing several shotguns in the air!)

Yes, I do, because your wife fell on her face, incurring minor injuries that are consistent with such an accident. Dramatic? Let's see: you've started a web page with completely subjective "evidence" and ****-poor photos; you've spammed this BBS; and on your website you not so subtely solicit support for your suit. Yep. You are dramatic, and I believe you folks fit the criteria for whiners, too. Again, mature people would have just moved on, realizing that when you fall down and go "boom," you can get hurt.

"I live in Branson Mo where thousands of engineers and physicians spend their hard earned money on timeshares." Christ. What a yahoo.

 

[Ryders Injuries]

I'm not sure what you mean by "delicated", but on contact with an abrasive surface, skin is capable of far more shear deformation without damage than plastic. I've already told you why there are scratches on the edge of the helmet. Kind of ironic to hear you lecturing us on ignoring things we don't want to hear.

You've repeatedly dodged the points about scratches on the outside of the sunglasses, and propper fitting of the helmet. (which is unfortunately the simplest answer)

The root cause of my skepticism is having been in numerous crashes myself. I have in fact completely shredded the side of a helmet without my sunglasses touching the ground. If the helmet in this case did in fact contact the ground first, it was not propperly fitted, and shifted at the slightest touch. If this is the case, it certainly isn't Ryders' fault that you don't know how to put on a helmet.

Art,

I've answered your questions to the point where any reasonable human should be satisfied, so lets just agree to disagree and be gentlemen about it. We are perfectly aware of what happenend, since, after all, we were kinda there.

One person says the helmet was poorly fitted and never touched the ground, the next person says the helmet was poorly fitted because it touched the ground. We can't all be right. But like I said, we were there.

Thanks for your time and your interest,
Clyde
www.tallgrassconsulting.com/ryders

 

[alienator]

I'm not sure what you mean by "delicated", but on contact with an abrasive surface, skin is capable of far more shear deformation without damage than plastic. I've already told you why there are scratches on the edge of the helmet. Kind of ironic to hear you lecturing us on ignoring things we don't want to hear.

You've repeatedly dodged the points about scratches on the outside of the sunglasses, and propper fitting of the helmet. (which is unfortunately the simplest answer)

The root cause of my skepticism is having been in numerous crashes myself. I have in fact completely shredded the side of a helmet without my sunglasses touching the ground. If the helmet in this case did in fact contact the ground first, it was not propperly fitted, and shifted at the slightest touch. If this is the case, it certainly isn't Ryders' fault that you don't know how to put on a helmet.

+1. I've been dragged along the ground by a van. The helmet was toast, but my sunglasses were unscathed. Given the way helmets are shaped, for the glasses to have hit the ground the helmet would essentially have to be poorly fitted. If the helmet was poorly fitted, then the claimant was not aware of how to properly use her equipment and should have had instruction in how to do so before venturing out of the driveway. How can the sunglass company be held responsible for something that was a direct result of the user's inability to properly use equipment? Helmets aren't Easter bonnets: there's a specific way that they're supposed to fit and be worn.

 

[Ryders Injuries]

+1. I've been dragged along the ground by a van. The helmet was toast, but my sunglasses were unscathed. Given the way helmets are shaped, for the glasses to have hit the ground the helmet would essentially have to be poorly fitted. If the helmet was poorly fitted, then the claimant was not aware of how to properly use her equipment and should have had instruction in how to do so before venturing out of the driveway. How can the sunglass company be held responsible for something that was a direct result of the user's inability to properly use equipment? Helmets aren't Easter bonnets: there's a specific way that they're supposed to fit and be worn.

Did you take into the account that our helmets have visors that stick out about 3 inches? Maybe I wasn't clear, the visor of the helmet struck the ground first. Check out the pictures on our site again.

www.tallgrassconsulting.com/ryders/synopsis.asp

 

[Ryders Injuries]

Alienator,

You refer to my posts as "Spam". I'm a member of this forum just like you. Are your posts somehow different than mine? Are my posts somehow of a less quality by virtue of the fact you disagree with my position?

I'm a member of the bike community just like you. I purchase bikes and all the other gear just like you do. I am a second class citizen simply because you deem it so?

How would you advise us to find other people that have been injured by Ryders Eyewear products? Isn't this a logical place to start?

 

[alienator]

Did you take into the account that our helmets have visors that stick out about 3 inches? Maybe I wasn't clear, the visor of the helmet struck the ground first. Check out the pictures on our site again.

This presence of a visor makes it even less likely for the glasses to hit the ground. If you allege that the visor caused the helmet to change position on your wife's head, then that only reinforces the idea that she was not wearing her helmet properly.

 

[alienator]

Alienator,

You refer to my posts as "Spam". I'm a member of this forum just like you. Are your posts somehow different than mine? Are my posts somehow of a less quality by virtue of the fact you disagree with my position?

I'm a member of the bike community just like you. I purchase bikes and all the other gear like you.

Ah, but I'm not soliciting the forum for financial gain. That is why you and your wife have come here. You hope that cyclists will side with you, strengthen your case, and increase the likelihood of winning money in your suit. Oh no. Make no mistake about. You are certainly selling something, here. What exactly did you contribute to the forum before you started your quest for money?

 

[Ryders Injuries]

This presence of a visor makes it even less likely for the glasses to hit the ground. If you allege that the visor caused the helmet to change position on your wife's head, then that only reinforces the idea that she was not wearing her helmet properly.

Who said or even implied the helmet changed position in the first place?

 

[alienator]

Who said or even implied the helmet changed position in the first place?

Then how did the glasses hit the ground if the helmet was properly positioned?

 

[Ryders Injuries]

Ah, but I'm not soliciting the forum for financial gain. That is why you and your wife have come here. You hope that cyclists will side with you, strengthen your case, and increase the likelihood of winning money in your suit. Oh no. Make no mistake about. You are certainly selling something, here. What exactly did you contribute to the forum before you started your quest for money?

Dude,

Getting recompensed for medical expenses is not considered financial gain. Ask the IRS, they can't even tax that and you know they would if they could

 

[Ryders Injuries]

Then how did the glasses hit the ground if the helmet was properly positioned?

We just strap our helmets on. We don't bolt them in. Everythings gotta give a little. Helmet hits, takes the brunt of the blow, neck yields under pressure exerted on visor. Glasses make contact, then cheek. Do me a favor, try it tonight in your backyard and report back tomorrow

Remember, the scientific method demands repeatable results, so try it a number of times. Anything for science.

(You got to admit, that was a little funny.)

 

[alienator]

Dude,

Getting recompensed for medical expenses is not considered financial gain. Ask the IRS, they can't even tax that and you know they would if they could

Well, gee, I didn't know we were playing by IRS rules.

It's financial gain, because your wifey had an accident, **** happened, and you just can't accept that. So you want to blame someone else and have them pay.

Yup: it's financial gain.

 

[Ryders Injuries]

Well, gee, I didn't know we were playing by IRS rules.

It's financial gain, because your wifey had an accident, **** happened, and you just can't accept that. So you want to blame someone else and have them pay.

Yup: it's financial gain.

Sorry man, must disagree. Do you know of a higher authoritative power than the IRS? Please don't tell me since they disagree with you, they're wrong, too.

I can't accept the fact, therefore it's financial gain? What if I went to therapy and learned to accept it, then could I post here?

I can't stand to have my faith in physics and taxes all destroyed in the same afternoon

You are a hoot and half, my friend. Really enjoyed posting with you!

 

[alienator]

We just strap our helmets on. We don't bolt them in. Everythings gotta give a little. Helmet hits, takes the brunt of the blow, neck yields under pressure exerted on visor. Glasses make contact, then cheek. Do me a favor, try it tonight in your backyard and report back tomorrow

Remember, the scientific method demands repeatable results, so try it a number of times. Anything for science.

(You got to admit, that was a little funny.)

So, now, you're saying the helmet took the "brunt" of the blow? Where is the evidence of that? The helmet looks as if it took the brunt of nothing. Where is the scarring of the visor that would have come with it yielding under the "pressure" exerted on it, as a result of its contact with tarmac.

Nah, instead why don't you have your wife fall a few more times. She seems quite adept at it. You've got to admit, that's funny. And scientific method does not demand repeatable results. In fact, the lack of repeatable results can be viewed as a pertinent negative. You should look up scientific method, since you apparently don't know how it's defined.

 

[alienator]

Sorry man, must disagree. Do you know of a higher authoritative power than the IRS? Please don't tell me since they disagree with you, they're wrong, too.

I can't accept the fact, therefore it's financial gain? What if I went to therapy and learned to accept it, then could I post here?

I can't stand to have my faith in physics and taxes all destroyed in the same afternoon

Your a hoot and half, my friend. Really enjoyed posting with you!

And we'll enjoy more of your whining......"waaaaaaaa. my wife fell down and got a booboo. I need to find someone to blame......waaaaaaaaa. I live next to the timeshares of engineers and doctors....waaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa."

Faith isn't required with physics. People with scientific or engineering backgrounds understand that.

And who's talking taxes? Only you. It's financial windfall for you--or so you hope--because Cindy can't put her helmet on right or hold herself up when at a stop...so she fell down....and now you want someone to pay your expenses resulting from Cindy's incompetence and misfortune.

 

[Ryders Injuries]

So, now, you're saying the helmet took the "brunt" of the blow? Where is the evidence of that? The helmet looks as if it took the brunt of nothing. Where is the scarring of the visor that would have come with it yielding under the "pressure" exerted on it, as a result of its contact with tarmac.

Nah, instead why don't you have your wife fall a few more times. She seems quite adept at it. You've got to admit, that's funny. And scientific method does not demand repeatable results. In fact, the lack of repeatable results can be viewed as a pertinent negative. You should look up scientific method, since you apparently don't know how it's defined.

Tarmac? Tarmac?

Are we even talking about the same story? This was an off-road injury! No wonder you reached the conclusions you did.

Please just take one minute and actually read the story. Go to www.tallgrassconsulting.com/ryders and click on the "More Details of our Story" link. You are arguing a case based apparently on nothing but rumor. Good grief man, tarmac? One guy thought this happened at a stop light.

That is how rumors get started.

 

[alienator]

Tarmac? Tarmac?

Are we even talking about the same story? This was an off-road injury! No wonder you reached the conclusions you did.

Please just take one minute and actually read the story. Go to www.tallgrassconsulting.com/ryders and click on the "More Details of our Story" link. You are arguing a case based apparently on nothing but rumor. Good grief man, tarmac? One guy thought this happened at a stop light.

That is how rumors get started.

It's a reference to having an accident, baby doll: it's not meant literally. I read the story, but I'm afraid to read it again.......it's not polite to laugh.