Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



I submit that on or about Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:12:24 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>>>I doubt it would take much to feed the output of a hub generator into a
>>>trickle type charger that charges a small battery, then have the battery
>>>power the lamps, giving you the best of both worlds.


>> No need: modern dynamo lights are available with built-in standlights.


>But think about it for a second, the argument against dynamo lights is
>their low power (no matter how you look at it, 3Watts at 3V is pretty
>dim). The problem with battery systems is that the batteries, go flat.


I use dynamo lights on unlit roads at night; the problem is largely
illusory - 3W works fine, and a 6W (12V) series setup on a SON hub
works fine at speeds of up to around 30mph.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
I submit that on or about Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:19:49 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<9ppNe.9879$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>> So you say. And of course in ScharfWorld, denouncing them as
>> "woefully inadequate" is of course completely different...


>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/0932eb63e019ed2d?dmode=source&hl=en


>Very creative snipping.


Nearly as creative as yours - once again you snipped the call for
evidence without actually providing any! I see a pattern emerging
here...

>First of all, they are woefully inadequate in the U.S., as I stated.


And your externally verifiable evidence for this claim is?...

>You really are unable to respond without creating strawmen, or
>misquoting.


Once again you accuse others of your own worst faults. Evidently you
believe your own PR!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave Vandervies wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Dave Vandervies wrote:

>>
>>>> HZ: All of 'em.
>>>
>>> Bzzt. Disqualified right there! (Has anyone EVER said that?!?)

>>
>> Probably not in so many words, but given the reactions that come up
>> when somebody tries to point out that a helmet really isn't much more
>> than
>> a scratch protector

>
>Bzzt! You're two-for-two!


You'd probably give it a more charitable interpretation than I did,
but your response when the idea that a helmet isn't much more than a
styrofoam scratch protector came up in the subthread that starts at
<[email protected]> seems to indicate that you're
not all that fond of the idea that helmets are useless for the vast
majority of cycling injuries that they're claimed to protect against.

If you really want to hold everybody who disagrees with you to standards
that are that much higher than your own, then replace "All of 'em"
with "Almost all of 'em", then reflect on how much of a difference that
actually made to my point.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
The only things I see wrong with this code are the algorithm and
the implementation.
--Billy Chambless in comp.lang.c
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Dave Vandervies wrote:
>>
>> Slipperier than it should be, perhaps, but you're as much to blame as
>> him for that (if not more).
>>
>> And it appears you still haven't read and understood what I wrote.
>> Are you going to, or are you just going to tell us why you should be
>> allowed to remain stupid because you can't be bothered to understand
>> what we're trying to tell you?
>>
>>
>> dave

>
>
>Dearest David:


I see no David here.


> Ad hom noted.


I see no ad hominem, either. I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm telling
you you're acting like one; if you don't like being told you're acting
like an idiot, stop acting like one.

Bs pbhefr, V'ir lrg gb zrrg nalobql jub pna haqrefgnaq gur qvfgvapgvba
lrg fgvyy arrqf gb unir vg cbvagrq bhg gb gurz, fb V'z cebonoyl jnfgvat
zl gvzr urer.

> I hope you are willing to work on making helmets more
>effective,


An easy way to make helmets more effective is to make sure people
understand what they actually protect against and what they don't.
If you're willing to actually look into that yourself, you're doing an
excellent job of hiding all the evidence of that willingness.

> rather than insulting the intelligence of survivors of head
>injury fatalities.


Can you point out a survivor of a head injury fatality whose intelligence
I've insulted? (Hint: Start by finding a survivor of a head injury
fatality, and then check whether I've insulted their intelligence.)

If a cyclist did something potentially dangerous, that they wouldn't've
done without the helmet, because they didn't know the helmet wasn't
sufficient protection, and received a head injury as a result (fatal
or not), then their ignorance was a contributing factor to the injury.
That ignorance may or may not have been because of stupidity, and it may
or may not have been the type of stupidity that causes them to refuse
to try to understand something just because they can't be bothered.
But it's still an injury caused (at least in part) by ignorance, and
pointing that out isn't insulting their intelligence (or knowledge).


dave
(almost time to put this thread in the killfile, I think)

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
The only things I see wrong with this code are the algorithm and
the implementation.
--Billy Chambless in comp.lang.c
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave Vandervies wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Dave Vandervies wrote:
>>>
>>>>> HZ: All of 'em.
>>>>
>>>> Bzzt. Disqualified right there! (Has anyone EVER said that?!?)
>>>
>>> Probably not in so many words, but given the reactions that come up
>>> when somebody tries to point out that a helmet really isn't much
>>> more than
>>> a scratch protector

>>
>> Bzzt! You're two-for-two!

>
> You'd probably give it a more charitable interpretation than I did,
> but your response when the idea that a helmet isn't much more than a
> styrofoam scratch protector came up in the subthread that starts at
> <[email protected]> seems to indicate that
> you're not all that fond of the idea that helmets are useless for the
> vast majority of cycling injuries that they're claimed to protect
> against.


I was merely commenting on your attributing words/arguments to others that
don't exist. Twice. (Granted, first case -- which you snipped -- was more
egregious.)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:

>I was merely commenting on your attributing words/arguments to others that
>don't exist. Twice. (Granted, first case -- which you snipped -- was more
>egregious.)


Hmm. That does appear to be what I was doing. (Though I still
think that replacing the first one with a valid representation of the
position I was attempting to represent doesn't affect the point I was
making/illustrating, and would carry the additional bonus of removing
the opportunity for the second. I just chose particularly bad examples
to support it.)

And then when I got called on it I responded in a way that I and many
others object to (quite legitimately) when people we disagree with try
to do it.

I really need to go on a long bike ride instead of arguing on usenet, but
the bike shop hasn't finished fixing my brakes yet, and the weather 'round
here sucks this weekend anyways. But I definitely need to find something
to do where being grumpy won't lead to embarassing myself in public.
If you[1] catch me posting again before the end of the weekend, beat me
over the head with a crushed helmet or some other suitable implement.


dave

[1] Generic `you', not just Bill.

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
Let's all just agree that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, and
move on from there.
--Keith Thompson in comp.lang.c
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I was merely commenting on your attributing words/arguments to
>> others that don't exist. Twice. (Granted, first case -- which you
>> snipped -- was more egregious.)

>
> Hmm. That does appear to be what I was doing. (Though I still
> think that replacing the first one with a valid representation of the
> position I was attempting to represent doesn't affect the point I was
> making/illustrating, and would carry the additional bonus of removing
> the opportunity for the second. I just chose particularly bad
> examples to support it.)
>
> And then when I got called on it I responded in a way that I and many
> others object to (quite legitimately) when people we disagree with try
> to do it.
>
> I really need to go on a long bike ride instead of arguing on usenet,
> but the bike shop hasn't finished fixing my brakes yet, and the
> weather 'round here sucks this weekend anyways. But I definitely
> need to find something to do where being grumpy won't lead to
> embarassing myself in public.
> If you[1] catch me posting again before the end of the weekend, beat
> me over the head with a crushed helmet or some other suitable
> implement.


Just wear your helmet.

{pause}

:p
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation
> >> seem

> >
> > There are no "anti-helmet folks." It is all in your mind.

>
> That's funny, I could have sworn it's been on my computer screen!


Then you can characterize a member by describing his
values, goals, methods, knowledge-base, tools, attitude,
and theses; and cite two or more writings that support
your thesis.

--
Michael Press
 
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I would welcome your efforts to make cycling helmets more effective.

> >
> >
> > I won't make that effort.

>
> I know you won't--that's my point.


Right. They're not needed. Making them "more effective" is a waste of
time. Surely that's simple enough to understand.

>
> As I said in my previous post: To make them
> > more effective, make them much thicker. Do away with most of the
> > ventilation holes. Bring back the hard shells. Oh, and redesign the
> > ridiculously ineffective straps with something that will keep its shape
> > and adjustment - maybe solid plastic. [And as I said, these would make helmets only marginally more protective, but significantly more unpleasant.]

>
>
> You don't know (and CANNOT know) that that is the only way to do this.


:) Oh, I'm sure a non-engineer can tell a licensed mechanical
engineer what he knows about mechanical design!

What did you say your background was? ISTR it was dentistry.

You'll note that I never debate dentists on tooth cleaning. There are
good reasons for that. Perhaps you should ponder them.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would welcome your efforts to make cycling helmets more effective.
>>>
>>>
>>>I won't make that effort.

>>
>> I know you won't--that's my point.

>
>
> Right. They're not needed. Making them "more effective" is a waste of
> time. Surely that's simple enough to understand.
>
>
>> As I said in my previous post: To make them
>>
>>>more effective, make them much thicker. Do away with most of the
>>>ventilation holes. Bring back the hard shells. Oh, and redesign the
>>>ridiculously ineffective straps with something that will keep its shape
>>>and adjustment - maybe solid plastic. [And as I said, these would make helmets only marginally more protective, but significantly more unpleasant.]

>>
>>
>> You don't know (and CANNOT know) that that is the only way to do this.

>
>
> :) Oh, I'm sure a non-engineer can tell a licensed mechanical
> engineer what he knows about mechanical design!
>
> What did you say your background was? ISTR it was dentistry.
>
> You'll note that I never debate dentists on tooth cleaning. There are
> good reasons for that. Perhaps you should ponder them.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


Please feel free, Frank. If you have in fact worked on making helmets
safer, accept my apologies. If you think the brain-injured and dead
people I've known are a waste of time, you can go to hell.

Steve
>



--
Cut the nonsense to reply
 
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > What did you say your background was? ISTR it was dentistry.
> >
> > You'll note that I never debate dentists on tooth cleaning. There are
> > good reasons for that. Perhaps you should ponder them.

>
> Please feel free, Frank. If you have in fact worked on making helmets
> safer, accept my apologies. If you think the brain-injured and dead
> people I've known are a waste of time, you can go to hell.


Wow, _that's_ charitable! And a major non-sequitur!

Did I say your brain-injured acquaintances are a waste of time? No,
not even close.

But let me ask: Of the brain injured and dead people you've known, how
many were injured by cycling, and how many by other activities? I'm
curious whether your group fits the national profile.

You're aware, I'm sure, that cycling is less than 1% of the serious
head injury problem in the US. Right?

I sometimes suspect that bike helmet fanatics think the _other_ 99% are
a waste of time!

- Frank Krygowski
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I submit that on or about Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:19:49 GMT, the person
> known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
> (<9ppNe.9879$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
> the following effect:
>
>
>>>So you say. And of course in ScharfWorld, denouncing them as
>>>"woefully inadequate" is of course completely different...

>
>
>>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/0932eb63e019ed2d?dmode=source&hl=en

>
>
>>Very creative snipping.

>
>
> Nearly as creative as yours - once again you snipped the call for
> evidence without actually providing any! I see a pattern emerging


The evidence is in the same places that I've pointed to on numerous
occasions. I'm sure you're smart enough to look at the previous threads
on the subject and find it.

Not that any amount of evidence has ever convinced you of anything in
the past.
 
Steven Bornfeld said:
...I hope you are willing to work on making helmets more effective, rather than insulting the intelligence of survivors of head injury fatalities.

Steve Bornfeld

That shows us how incredibly muddled headed you are Steve. What a crock of illogic - and obviously you seem to think that's an OK construction?
 
I submit that on or about Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:50:57 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<REyNe.9931$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>> once again you snipped the call for
>> evidence without actually providing any! I see a pattern emerging


>The evidence is in the same places that I've pointed to on numerous
>occasions. I'm sure you're smart enough to look at the previous threads
>on the subject and find it.


I was a participant in those threads. My recollection is that you
reacted to the repeated calls for evidence by killfiling me and Frank.
I've reviewed at least one of those threads, and can't find any
externally verifiable evidence from you to back your assertions.

Since I can neither remember or find the evidence you claim you
posted, I am sure it will be no problem for you to post it again.

>Not that any amount of evidence has ever convinced you of anything in
>the past.


Once again you falsely accuse others of your own worst faults.
Specifically in the case of helmets, I used to be an enthusiastic
helmet promoter until I discovered the contradictory and confusing
nature of the evidence. So that's one example where the evidence
convinced me.

As ever, your zealotry causes you to see all agnostics as atheists.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
Steven Bornfeld wrote:

> Ad hom noted. I hope you are willing to work on making helmets more
> effective, rather than insulting the intelligence of survivors of head
> injury fatalities.


Huh? Where did they bury the survivors of these fatalities?
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Wow, _that's_ charitable! And a major non-sequitur!
>
> Did I say your brain-injured acquaintances are a waste of time? No,
> not even close.



>
> But let me ask: Of the brain injured and dead people you've known, how
> many were injured by cycling, and how many by other activities? I'm
> curious whether your group fits the national profile.


All of them (save one) suffered their brain injuries in cycling
accidents (and he suffered his in a mugging, coming to the aid of his
brother). There were other serious accidents deaths from cycling, other
than brain injury. I don't know that ANY of them would have been
prevented by better helmets--not the point anymore.
Your callousness is overwhelming to me. I am no longer a young man,
and I don't need to get my blood pressure up.
I will no longer respond to you Frank. Good luck winning folks over to
your way of thinking.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
SMS wrote:

> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>> Ad hom noted. I hope you are willing to work on making helmets
>> more effective, rather than insulting the intelligence of survivors of
>> head injury fatalities.

>
>
> Huh? Where did they bury the survivors of these fatalities?



Just over the border where the zombie movies are made.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:56:11 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wow, _that's_ charitable! And a major non-sequitur!
>>
>> Did I say your brain-injured acquaintances are a waste of time? No,
>> not even close.

>
>
>>
>> But let me ask: Of the brain injured and dead people you've known, how
>> many were injured by cycling, and how many by other activities? I'm
>> curious whether your group fits the national profile.

>
> All of them (save one) suffered their brain injuries in cycling
>accidents (and he suffered his in a mugging, coming to the aid of his
>brother). There were other serious accidents deaths from cycling, other
>than brain injury. I don't know that ANY of them would have been
>prevented by better helmets--not the point anymore.


That is the point. Deaths in cycling are rare. And when someone gets
slammed big-time be a car they will understandably have many other
injuries too. Helmets can help in a small fraction of those rare
incidents. They can probably help with some minor injuries too.

So you're so strongly in favor of something that helps a small slice
of very race events -- accidents wear the blow to the head is not too
severe as to overwhelm these thin foam things on our heads but not so
severe as to crack someones next or push in their face or cause other
serios problems. Fine. But to think helmets are very important or
nearly essential to safe cycling is just fooling yourself.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:56:11 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Wow, _that's_ charitable! And a major non-sequitur!
>>>
>>>Did I say your brain-injured acquaintances are a waste of time? No,
>>>not even close.

>>
>>
>>>But let me ask: Of the brain injured and dead people you've known, how
>>>many were injured by cycling, and how many by other activities? I'm
>>>curious whether your group fits the national profile.

>>
>> All of them (save one) suffered their brain injuries in cycling
>>accidents (and he suffered his in a mugging, coming to the aid of his
>>brother). There were other serious accidents deaths from cycling, other
>>than brain injury. I don't know that ANY of them would have been
>>prevented by better helmets--not the point anymore.

>
>
> That is the point. Deaths in cycling are rare. And when someone gets
> slammed big-time be a car they will understandably have many other
> injuries too. Helmets can help in a small fraction of those rare
> incidents. They can probably help with some minor injuries too.
>
> So you're so strongly in favor of something that helps a small slice
> of very race events -- accidents wear the blow to the head is not too
> severe as to overwhelm these thin foam things on our heads but not so
> severe as to crack someones next or push in their face or cause other
> serios problems. Fine. But to think helmets are very important or
> nearly essential to safe cycling is just fooling yourself.


Now YOU'RE missing my point JT. I'll outline it again for you, and
then I've said all I'm going to.
Frank said a safer cycling helmet could be made, but it would have to
look like a motorcycle helmet. I merely said that there's no way he
could know that was the only way, given his apparent disinterest in
acknowledging there is even a problem with cycling head injuries. He
went on to say (as he has so often) that cycling is safe, implying
broadly that special safety measures and devices were unnecessary--he
would not in fact interest himself in safety devices--mainly because
their promotion would discourage cycling. I told him that, having known
much more than a few people seriously injured in cycling accidents
(including myself), that avoiding the issue of cycling safety so as not
to give the appearance that cycling is dangerous was more than a little
callous. In fact, many of these head injuries occured while wearing a
helmet (including my own). It is very much an open issue to me whether
the helmet helped me at all in this case; Frank's answer is that he's a
mechanical engineer (for crying out loud!) and how dare I call him on
his disinterest in this issue. So for ME it's about more than helmets.
For Frank, who knows--maybe the freedom to feel the wind in his hair,
maybe the freedom to say these very, very, very few dead and maimed
cyclists are insufficient cause to advocate safety--whether through
better traffic management, law enforcement, or improved safety devices.

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



--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001