Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:36:18 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Uhhh, dude, you know there are people who travel w/o cars sometimes --
>like walking or even (gasp) on a bike. Are we supposed to carry a GPS
>at all times too?
>
>JT


Good point. Yes. Need to ask my son to get me a good buy before they
tear down the signs.

I can be a guide for the out-of-towners when I retire, if they have a
GPS with a really big read-out.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:02:08 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Good point. Yes. Need to ask my son to get me a good buy before they
>tear down the signs.
>
>I can be a guide for the out-of-towners when I retire, if they have a
>GPS with a really big read-out.


I'm going to be a crotchety old guy and just tell them "Can't get
there from here" when I get old.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Which is all well and good, but doesn't really get us any closer to the
>>point; I think brakes have a net positive effect on safety, and hence your
>>original assertion is unjustified.

>I'm finished with this thread. I just want to clear up that I never
>claimed brakes had no positive effect on safety.


Who said you did? No-one.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Tuesday, August.
 
So the important question is - is this the longest running thread on usenet?
Sure seems like it!

Lee
 
I submit that on or about Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:15:21 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<JlMOe.10307$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>> Incredible, isn't it? People should be grateful for your taking time
>> out of your busy schedule to tell them their experience counts for
>> nothing, their judgment is worthless and their assessment of the
>> benefits of different types of system is necessarily wrong!


>I don't care about the grateful part, but unfortunately you are often
>correct about your next three statements. It's sometimes very difficult
>for a person to get beyond, 'I do it this way, I've always done it this
>way, I haven't experienced any negative consequences doing it this way,
>so my way is obviously a good way.'


We noticed. That is, after all, your usual MO.

>As far as the relative merits of the different kinds of lights, I am
>certainly not alone, among lighting experts, in stating the safety
>benefits of the higher brightness lights, while recognizing the
>self-sufficiency and convenience aspects of of dynamo systems (I do own
>some dynamo systems).


1. How many of them urge people "not to trust" such systems?

2. Where is your evidence? Comparative per-mile casualty stats would
settle any dispute.

>The "Myths and Facts" section at "http://nordicgroup.us/s78/myths.html"
>is probably the best place for you to start your quest for knowledge,
>once you decide to open your mind.


Ah, so those of us who think all systems are usable need to "open our
minds" in order to accept that only one kind of system is any good.
Silly of me not to notice.

Interestingly, your "myths and facts" presentation in both lights and
helmets pretends that all the errors are on the other side; it's
amusing how tortured you need to make this sometimes in order to make
one of your own worst faults seem as if it's only exhibited by those
who disagree with you! Naturally, since you apparently sincerely
believe that you are one of Earth's greatest experts on everything, it
is inconceivable that your cherished beliefs could be anything less
than Revealed Truth.

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 Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:55:56 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<w3MOe.10306$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>Yesterday I took my kids, and two nieces bicycling in Monterey. I
>realized that I had packed everything, except my own helmet. I didn't
>know what to do. I thought about those people who are just positive that
>risk compensation would rear its ugly head and I was terrified that I
>would suddenly begin riding at 2 mph and would have to pull over every
>time a car or bicycle approached from the front or rear.
>Amazingly, I found that I did not ride any differently with or without a
>helmet.


Excellent straw man. As anybody who is even vaguely interested in
risk compensation theory will know, the balancing behaviour exhibited
tends to be subtle. Since crashes tend to be the result not of the
taking of large risks, but of the taking of small risks very large
numbers of times, that is all that's needed.

Barry Pless, editor of Injury Prevention, used to dismiss risk
compensation, as well. He set out to prove it didn't happen.

He was rather surprised when the results of his study showed that risk
compensation theory is exactly correct.

"Risk compensation in children's activities: A pilot study", Mok D,
Gore G, Hagel B, Mok E, Magdalinos H, Pless B. 2004. Paediatr Child
Health: Vol 9 No 5 May/June 2004

Once again you confuse "no evidence with which Scharf agrees" for "no
evidence". A natural consequence of your titanic hubris, I'm afraid.

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
 
Per Tom Kunich:
>That is to say that accidents in which a motorcyclist is killed from a head
>injury alone and in which the head injury therefore sustained could be
>mediated by a motorcycle helmet to less than lethal are so rare as to be a
>statistical freak. If you read the accident reports and the statistics you
>can arrive at no other answer.


Still sounds fishy to me. Perhaps not on a purely technical/legalistic basis -
but I'd guess there are plenty of non-lethal head injuries that cause lasting
damage.

Long time ago, some drunk nailed me on my Yamaha YDS-6 when I was going about 50
mph. I was wearing one of those Bell helmets that come down low on the sides
and the back of the neck, but don't cover the face.

I flew through the air head-first in a sort of swan dive posture, hit the
blacktop face-first, and things deteriorated rapidly from then on.

Cracked the helmet, suspect I wound up putting my dentist's kid through at least
two semesters of college, and saw flashes of light for several days afterwards.

My feeling is that even if that helmet didn't save my life, it probably kept me
from becoming even more of a raving idiot than I am.
--
PeteCresswell
 
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:17:47 -0400, "Lee" <lee_AT_SHOES_wheelman_DOT_com>
wrote:

>So the important question is - is this the longest running thread on usenet?
>Sure seems like it!


Are you kidding? In a mere two or three weeks and a ****ling 1000 posts?
Legendary usenet Threads That Would Not Die tend to be in the more than a
year, over 5000 messages ballpark. Under that, don't even bother.


Jasper
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Naturally, since you apparently sincerely
> believe that you are one of Earth's greatest experts on everything, it
> is inconceivable that your cherished beliefs could be anything less
> than Revealed Truth.


Beliefs need to be based on more than what you wish were true, or what
you have personally experienced.

If you want to base your beliefs on lighting, on the lack of statistics
that compare accidents, injuries, and fatalities versus no lighting, 3W
lighting, and more powerful lighting, then indeed you could come to the
conclusion that you so desperately desire. But basing your conclusion on
the lack of statistics is not proof of anything. Where there are no
statistics, you have to look at other ways of determining the optimal
equipment.
 
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:17:47 -0400, "Lee" <lee_AT_SHOES_wheelman_DOT_com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>So the important question is - is this the longest running thread on usenet?
>>Sure seems like it!

>
>
> Are you kidding? In a mere two or three weeks and a ****ling 1000 posts?
> Legendary usenet Threads That Would Not Die tend to be in the more than a
> year, over 5000 messages ballpark. Under that, don't even bother.


A good chain lubrication thread can easily beat a helmet thread!
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave Vandervies wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Dave Vandervies wrote:


>>>> 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. {smiley thing went here}

>>
>> When am I supposed to be wearing the helmet? For the beating that was
>> supposed to discourage me from posting until I'd taken a weekend off?
>> That'd've kind of defeated the purpose. (See? Risk compensation!)
>> For the computer work I ended up doing instead? It didn't go as well
>> as I'd've liked, but since I Don't Do Windows I was in no danger of
>> wanting to beat my head on the wall or anything, so a helmet
>> wouldn't've helped any there (and no, I'm not going to wear a helmet
>> just so I
>> can use Windows without hurting my head banging it against the wall).
>> For the ride that'd've been rather more helpful than just a weekend
>> off? Can't do that until I get my bike back (hopefully today).

>
>Sheesh. In the time it took you to write THAT you could have geared up for
>/another/ ride!


[Smiley retained this time]
>:p

(Hmm, I think I like it better quoted. Evil unibrow tongue-sticking-out
smiley, almost like me in real life.)

Yep, and probably would've done so instead of writing it if I'd had a
bike available at the time. Finally got it back from the shop later
that afternoon.

40km in the last three days, and I'm already feeling (and hopefully
acting) much less grumpy.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]

It's the humans I'm seeking to educate, not the computers.
--Ben Pfaff in comp.lang.c
 
"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:36:18 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Uhhh, dude, you know there are people who travel w/o cars sometimes --
>>like walking or even (gasp) on a bike. Are we supposed to carry a GPS
>>at all times too?
>>
>>JT

>
> Good point. Yes. Need to ask my son to get me a good buy before they
> tear down the signs.
>
> I can be a guide for the out-of-towners when I retire, if they have a
> GPS with a really big read-out.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...


That reminds me of people out in the higher priced neighborhoods in
Connecticutt always destroy the road signs so people cannot find their way
around their areas and stay away.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:36:18 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Uhhh, dude, you know there are people who travel w/o cars sometimes
>>> -- like walking or even (gasp) on a bike. Are we supposed to carry
>>> a GPS at all times too?
>>>
>>> JT

>>
>> Good point. Yes. Need to ask my son to get me a good buy before they
>> tear down the signs.
>>
>> I can be a guide for the out-of-towners when I retire, if they have a
>> GPS with a really big read-out.
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...

>
> That reminds me of people out in the higher priced neighborhoods in
> Connecticutt always destroy the road signs so people cannot find
> their way around their areas and stay away.


But...but...how does the UPS truck find 'em to deliver bike parts?!?
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
> "bryanska" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This post is solely intended to drive this thread to 1000

> posts. Please
> > pitch in.

>
> I'm in. So, how does this compare to "Sheldon is a Party Doll."
> Attention Carl Fogel -- you have a research assignment. Which
> thread is longer? -- Jay Beattie.


Not sure which is longer, but I think this will be the 1,000th post on
this thread....

:)

-Buck
 
DANG! Missed it by one. Ok, so this will be the 1,000th post....

-Buck
 
Alrigh, alright, so my news reader was a bit confused and I'm too tired
this morning to count. Let the flaming begin.

bah.

-Buck
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

>>That reminds me of people out in the higher priced neighborhoods in
>>Connecticutt always destroy the road signs so people cannot find
>>their way around their areas and stay away.

>
>
> But...but...how does the UPS truck find 'em to deliver bike parts?!?
>


If the driver can't find the street, then Mr Snob Hill, can just drive
his SUV to the depot, and pickup his stuff himself.

W
 
Per Tom Kunich:
>That reminds me of people out in the higher priced neighborhoods in
>Connecticutt always destroy the road signs so people cannot find their way
>around their areas and stay away.


Small thinking.

In certain areas around where we live, they have it down pat. Keep the street
sign in place, but give a street 3 names: the name that shows up on a map, the
name on the street sign, and the name that the residents use to refer to the
street.
--
PeteCresswell
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Buck" <[email protected]> wrote:

> DANG! Missed it by one. Ok, so this will be the 1,000th post....
>
> -Buck


A the message count in a thread for the purposes of record
length ought to stop when reference is made to the actual
count. Pete Cresswell did so in
<[email protected]>.

The count for rbm, rbr, and rbt are as follows:

group count
rec.bicycles.misc 960
rec.bicycles.racing 962
rec.bicycles.tech 1022

--
Michael Press