Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Oh what a tangled web we weave. You seem to remember
> many details about this exchange with the mystery
> poster.

It so happens I remember that particular conversation as well and I also
remember it the way that Frank does. If you have a different version you're
perfectly free to google it up and show us.

> I strongly disagree with your implication that technical
> mtn biking and racing can be dangerous while 'normal
> cycling' is not.

Of course you do. Whereas only a very small number of people practice
"technical mountain biking" and yet comprise something like 5% of the
fatalities if I remember correctly.

Now, mind you, that STILL isn't very dangerous, but since mountain biking
has the sort of accidents in general for which a helmet is at least in the
proper speed regime, you can make a lot better case for forcing helmets onto
off-road mtn biking that on-road biking.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Paul Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS wrote:
>
>> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe car accidents are more lethal - and maybe death doesn't get
>>> reported into
>>> "injuries".
>>
>> Actually, with bicycle accidents that is sometimes the case. I.e., one
>> study showed _less_ serious injuries for non-helmeted riders, but higher
>> fatalities. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the reason
>> for this.
>
> What study is that?
>
> --
> Paul Turner

Is this THE Paul Turner of Rock Shox fame?

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > In fact, there's no reason for you to be angry at all. This is Usenet.
> > People will disagree. Calm yourself.
>
> Calm yourself to the point where you can disagree without the sarcasm
> and personal aspersions...

Just calm yourself. What you're complaining about is mostly what's in
your mind. It's your interpretation of what I said, not what I
actually said.

If you're this sensitive to mild disagreement, you probably need a
different hobby. Usenet is not for you.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> If we read this we

There's your "wee-wee" problem again, TK>

discover that Paterson has the idea that Frank is stupid
> for not remembering he insulted him when he was posting under a different
> name than he uses now. But then that's the problem with trying to hide your
> identity so that your employer can't discover what you're doing during
> working hours.

1) You know I'm retired. Or you can pull a junvenile Frank Krygowsky
move, and pretend you don't remember. Sniff, sniff.

2) My name was at the top of every post until AOL stopped supporting
their newsreader a few months ago. So that's five years or close
enough; name name name. So "google already".
Just a little snit in the first place, of course.

3) I don't think Frank is stupid, per se. I think he's got a huge
problem with helmets, to the point where anyone who says anything "in
favor" is fair game for a tarbrushing. (Examples): "Your daughter will
be a social cripple". "You are a handwringer if your kids use kneepads
and elbow pads while learning to ride a two-wheeler". "If you wear a
helmet, you are one of those stupid people who doesn't even know which
side of the street to ride on".

When I post to the contrary on the "handwringer" nonsense, there is no
yielding on the point: "You are weird if you let your daughter ride
horses but make her wear a helmet on her bicycle".

IOW, even when I "agree" that the "helmet saved my life" thing is of
very little importance compared to knowing traffic rules and
"protecting yourself at all times", Frank continues to blast away
because his emotions get in the way of his thinking.
Yes, there is a problem when you can't admit that you have been wrong.

You've been known to participate in this sort of business, yourself.
--D.u.s.t.o.y.e.v.s.k.y.

 

[SMS]

[email protected] wrote:

> 3) I don't think Frank is stupid, per se.

People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.

It is literally a religious issue of faith, and all the facts in the
world will not change someone's mind when their faith is unshakable.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> Just calm yourself. What you're complaining about is mostly what's in
> your mind. It's your interpretation of what I said, not what I
> actually said.

It's what you actually said. You actually trotted out example after
example of people you compared me to by juxtaposition. My daughter will
be a social cripple like your neighbor, I'm one of the stupid people
who doesn't know which side of the road to ride on, etc. etc.; no
matter what I say to prove you wrong-- and you are wrong-- it doesn't
matter because I have a helmet rule and had the kids use elbow/knee
pads to learn on. Red flag in front of the Krygowsky bull, snort snort.


> If you're this sensitive to mild disagreement, you probably >need a different hobby. Usenet is not for you.

And the grand pronouncement. What a joke.

Wow, are we just entirely eaten up with a grandiose sense of
self-importance or what?

I'll be around. If you can't handle that, maybe you should leave <g>.
Or at least take a vakay, get some pro help with your anger management
and projection problems.

Thanks for the suggestion (google?) on the knee/elbow pads, BTW. Our
driveway is one of those rough, deep-etched things where the aggregate
is exposed. Saved a lot of pain and healing time, and band-aids
('nother incomplete sentence) (sniff sniff).

Besides demon bike riding, #2 is swimming in the deep end of the pool
now, after a summer of near-daily swim lessons. "Water wings", like the
pads, are baby stuff (Frank Krygowsky, juxtaposition) and he doesn't
use them anymore. "Served their purpose". "Reasonable precaution".
--D-U-S-T-O-Y-E-V-S-K-Y

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Just calm yourself. What you're complaining about is mostly what's in
> > your mind. It's your interpretation of what I said, not what I
> > actually said.
>
> It's what you actually said.

If it were what I actually said, you'd be quoting, not
mis-paraphrasing.


>
> I'll be around. If you can't handle that, maybe you should leave <g>.
> Or at least take a vakay, get some pro help with your anger management
> and projection problems.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion (google?) on the knee/elbow pads, BTW. Our
> driveway is one of those rough, deep-etched things where the aggregate
> is exposed. Saved a lot of pain and healing time, and band-aids
> ('nother incomplete sentence) (sniff sniff).

No problem. We each write at our own intellectual and emotional level.

> Besides demon bike riding, #2 is swimming in the deep end of the pool
> now, after a summer of near-daily swim lessons. "Water wings", like the
> pads, are baby stuff (Frank Krygowsky, juxtaposition) and he doesn't
> use them anymore. "Served their purpose". "Reasonable precaution".
> --D-U-S-T-O-Y-E-V-S-K-Y

You think _I_ need anger management? Amazing!

I do wonder why a person would enter a discussion where there's bound
to be disagreement, if he can't stand others disagreeing with him.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:32:23 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<XTHMe.9558$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
>it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
>belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.

Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
helmets.
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

 

[peter]

>>People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
>>it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
>>belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.

>Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>helmets.

Don't forget aluminum frames.

 

[SMS]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
> helmets.

Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
great.

Look at the writings of Ken Kifer if you would like to learn from
someone who was able to understand that what he chose to do, was not
necessarily the best choice for everyone. For example, on the subject of
lights for commuting, he wrote, "For commuters, the best front light is
the very bright rechargeable lamp."

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:04:01 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<RdJMe.9573$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>> Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>> helmets.

>Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
>Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
>great.

No ,Steven, that is just another example of your titanic hubris. Where
millions of cyclists the world over are prepared to take a view based
on their own personal circumstances (and there are literally millions
of dynamo users, it's far and away the most common system on the
Dutch, Danish and German bikes I've seen), you assert, though without
basis of any actual evidence, despite repeated challenges, that they
are somehow "not safe".

I have tried rechargeable, alkaline, sidewall dynamo, bottom bracket
dynamo and both vintage and modern hub dynamo systems, I commute at
night on urban and extra-urban roads, and following a lot of (very
expensive) trial and error I *know* what works best for me. The fact
that you disagree will not make this any less the case. I do not
spend hundreds of pounds on hub dynamos out of blind faith, I do it
because for me it represents the best utility solution. It works.

I'd be interested, though, if you have any good quality externally
verifiable evidence that use of lights makes any measurable difference
to night-time cycling safety at all. Here I freely admit that I am
taking on trust the idea that I am safer with lights - I do not
actually know of any credible research evidence to prove it.

>Look at the writings of Ken Kifer if you would like to learn from
>someone who was able to understand that what he chose to do, was not
>necessarily the best choice for everyone. For example, on the subject of
>lights for commuting, he wrote, "For commuters, the best front light is
>the very bright rechargeable lamp."

As ever, you choose to cite only those authorities which support your
cherished beliefs, ignoring all others as if they do not exist.

http://www.audax.uk.net/lights/index.htm is a more balanced and honest
source of information. It is probably no coincidence that, although
audax riders use every kind of light, the SON is more prevalent among
audax riders than any other kind of rider I have met.

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

 

[SMS]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:04:01 GMT, the person
> known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
> (<RdJMe.9573$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
> the following effect:
>
>
>>>Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>>>helmets.
>
>
>>Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
>>Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
>>great.
>
>
> No ,Steven, that is just another example of your titanic hubris. Where
> millions of cyclists the world over are prepared to take a view based
> on their own personal circumstances (and there are literally millions

<snip>

Visit http://bicyclelighting.com for the facts on lighting. If you want
to change the subject to lighting, please begin a new thread.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <XTHMe.9558$p%[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 3) I don't think Frank is stupid, per se.
>
> People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
> it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
> belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.
>
> It is literally a religious issue of faith, and all the facts in the
> world will not change someone's mind when their faith is unshakable.

Well, it has been said that "faith" is another way of saying that one
believes what one knows cannot be true.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[SMS]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <XTHMe.9558$p%[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>3) I don't think Frank is stupid, per se.
>>
>>People that are normally logical on most subjects, sometimes just lose
>>it on certain subjects where they have a strong belief, even if that
>>belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common sense.
>>
>>It is literally a religious issue of faith, and all the facts in the
>>world will not change someone's mind when their faith is unshakable.
>
>
> Well, it has been said that "faith" is another way of saying that one
> believes what one knows cannot be true.

Very appropriate. The reason that some people, i.e. Frank and Guy, are
so unrelenting in their postings of what is known not to be true, is
because they want others to share their faith in what they know to be
untrue. Evangelists are always the most insecure people.

I was once very anti-helmet, and I still strongly believe that MHLs are
a big mistake. However after reading all the studies, I conceded that
helmets do have some benefit should the unlikely head impact crash occur.

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> It so happens I remember that particular conversation as well and I also
> remember it the way that Frank does. If you have a different version you're
> perfectly free to google it up and show us.

If it existed, we could 'google it up.'

> > I strongly disagree with your implication that technical
> > mtn biking and racing can be dangerous while 'normal
> > cycling' is not.
>
> Of course you do. Whereas only a very small number of people practice
> "technical mountain biking" and yet comprise something like 5% of the
> fatalities if I remember correctly.

Without a citation, I can only assume you are
making **** up.

> Now, mind you, that STILL isn't very dangerous, but since mountain biking
> has the sort of accidents in general for which a helmet is at least in the
> proper speed regime, you can make a lot better case for forcing helmets onto
> off-road mtn biking that on-road biking.

...okay...I'll keep that in mind. Because universal mandatory helmet
laws ARE the goal of my Evil Plan,
Tom.

Robert

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:45:18 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<i_PMe.9641$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

[Scharf asserts: "People that are normally logical on most subjects,
sometimes just lose it on certain subjects where they have a strong
belief, even if that belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common
sense]

>>>>Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>>>>helmets.

>>>Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
>>>Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
>>>great.

>> No ,Steven, that is just another example of your titanic hubris. Where
>> millions of cyclists the world over are prepared to take a view based
>> on their own personal circumstances (and there are literally millions

><snip>

Oh dear, you accidentally forgot to provide the evidence to back your
assertions, as requested in the bit you snipped.

So let's be clear, here: you assert with great confidence that dynamo
lighting is unsafe. Can you cite the per-mile casualty figures for
dynamo versus rechargeable users? That would seem to be the very
minimum that would be required to make such an assertion in the face
of the fact that millions of cyclists around the world use them daily.

Oh, wait, no - it's just the dynamo part that makes them unsafe, isn't
it? I remember now that you thought the 0.2W LEDs on the side of the
TL-LD1000 would be sufficient to prevent side-on collisions.

>Visit http://bicyclelighting.com for the facts on lighting. If you want
>to change the subject to lighting, please begin a new thread.

As stated: you are a perfect example of the fault of which you accuse
others. Instead of citing evidence to back your assertions, you link
a site with "the facts", conveniently forgetting to mention that it is
your own site. You say: "Steven M. Scharf is one of Earth's leading
experts on bicycle lighting" and you seem to believe that is all the
proof which is required. When pressed, you hide behind your website
where you control both medium and message.

You disagree with many other experts, many of whom recommend, use and
supply a type of lighting which you dogmatically assert is unsafe,
though without the basis of any verifiable evidence.

So; go somewhere impartial like http://www.audax.uk.net/lights/ - I
note that you snipe at it having "a lot of incorrect information"
although you don't actually say what that incorrect information might
be. It couldn't possibly be the bits that say dynamo lighting is a
good solution, could it? Surely not.

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:37:51 GMT, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Very appropriate. The reason that some people, i.e. Frank and Guy, are
>so unrelenting in their postings of what is known not to be true, is


At least part of the reason is that numerous people exaggerate the
efficacy of helmets and the danger of cycling, and the number of
people doing that seems to be growing. Frank is trying to stem that
tide and I'm glad he's doing it.

JT

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

 

[The Wogster]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I submit that on or about Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:45:18 GMT, the person
> known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
> (<i_PMe.9641$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
> the following effect:
>
> [Scharf asserts: "People that are normally logical on most subjects,
> sometimes just lose it on certain subjects where they have a strong
> belief, even if that belief is unsupported by facts, logic, and common
> sense]
>
>
>>>>>Prime example: Steven M Scharf and his opinions on dynamo lights and
>>>>>helmets.
>
>
>>>>Dynamo lights are another area where the faith of people like you and
>>>>Frank defy all facts and logic, because your faith in the dynamo is so
>>>>great.
>
>
>>>No ,Steven, that is just another example of your titanic hubris. Where
>>>millions of cyclists the world over are prepared to take a view based
>>>on their own personal circumstances (and there are literally millions
>
>
>><snip>
>
>
> Oh dear, you accidentally forgot to provide the evidence to back your
> assertions, as requested in the bit you snipped.
>
> So let's be clear, here: you assert with great confidence that dynamo
> lighting is unsafe. Can you cite the per-mile casualty figures for
> dynamo versus rechargeable users? That would seem to be the very
> minimum that would be required to make such an assertion in the face
> of the fact that millions of cyclists around the world use them daily.
>
> Oh, wait, no - it's just the dynamo part that makes them unsafe, isn't
> it? I remember now that you thought the 0.2W LEDs on the side of the
> TL-LD1000 would be sufficient to prevent side-on collisions.
>
>
>>Visit http://bicyclelighting.com for the facts on lighting. If you want
>>to change the subject to lighting, please begin a new thread.
>
>
> As stated: you are a perfect example of the fault of which you accuse
> others. Instead of citing evidence to back your assertions, you link
> a site with "the facts", conveniently forgetting to mention that it is
> your own site. You say: "Steven M. Scharf is one of Earth's leading
> experts on bicycle lighting" and you seem to believe that is all the
> proof which is required. When pressed, you hide behind your website
> where you control both medium and message.
>
> You disagree with many other experts, many of whom recommend, use and
> supply a type of lighting which you dogmatically assert is unsafe,
> though without the basis of any verifiable evidence.
>
> So; go somewhere impartial like http://www.audax.uk.net/lights/ - I
> note that you snipe at it having "a lot of incorrect information"
> although you don't actually say what that incorrect information might
> be. It couldn't possibly be the bits that say dynamo lighting is a
> good solution, could it? Surely not.
>

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. First the battery
is always charged, and you can run a higher powered lamp then the
generator alone could handle. Since the charger is running even at
night, it would take a long time to totally discharge the battery.

W

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>An interesting test for someone who thinks they _don't_ risk compensate
>>is this: Get into a car and drive in heavy traffic with no seatbelt
>>and no airbag.
> Oh, and considering that the lack of seatbelts as a safety device will
>stop me driving (or that I will not cycle if I've forgotten my helmet on
>a ride)

Then you pretty clearly risk compensate. Lacking a seatbelt, you reduce
the chance of being in a motor accident to zero; given a seatbelt, you
increase it to some higher figure.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Oneiros, August.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Your reading comprehension is too limited to explain this. I did not say
>>that the negative and positive effects were equal. Please reread it until
>>you understand what I am saying; then perhaps we can discuss it.
>You wrote:
>>>>the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are
>>>>equally "once an accident has happened".
>I'm guessing you meant "equal".

Well, you're wrong. I wrote "equally" because I meant "equally", of
course. Why don't you try reading what I wrote, not what you think I
wrote?

>When you stop with the juvenile insults, does that mean we've started
>"discussing"?

I'm sorry if you find it insulting, but it is not possible to discuss this
with you if you are unable to comprehend was is written. You might find it
easier if you read what _is_ written, not second-guess what might have
been written.

>Yes, comparing caving to cycling is reeeeaching for a handhold since
>the activities are so very different, especially as relates to helmets
>and banging your head. Being hit by a rockfall while cycling? Beyond
>"vanishing", although I'm sure someone can anecdote.

Once again you either fail to comprehened the original point or are simpyl
being obtuse. Go back and rearead it.

>>Yes, yes, good rationalisation, just like everyone else's.
>The "impatience of the superior being" ploy. Road rash beats helmet RC,
>here. If you don't agree, fine.

Neat dodge, but you still haven't explained why your rationalisation is so
much better than anyone else's.

>>>"Did you try hitting her head without the helmet" is close enough to
>>>the quote.
>>Apart from being, er, completely different. "Did you try X", where X is
>>clearly ridiculous, is not even approximately like "You should try X".
>This nasty response is so telling. Wiggling doesn't fix anything.

There's nothing to fix. You lied about what I wrote, and I pointed out you
were lying.

>>>I understand that at least some kinds of medical care in Canada are
>>>very, very slow.
>>Including emergency care after crashes? I think not.
>http://www.stopthewaiting.ca/

Ah, when "very, very slow" means "somewhat slow in a way that wouldn't
create the behaviour you were insinuating exists". No surprise these.

>>>I got my first racing license in 1980.
>>Obviously an 11-year-old child had plenty of time to observe you then.
>Less obvious, having any success even as a USA parking-lot amateur
>means hours in the saddle (riding on public roads in vehicle traffic),
>and experience riding in groups.

None of which means that your behaviour in 1980 was observed by someone
who is 11 now.

>>No, that's the way any rational person would interpret "no
>>helmet, no bike".
>You can refuse to accept my words; the challenge is to do it without
>insult and sarcasm.

When you write something that isn't so ridiculous, sure.

>>So why not still "no kneepad, no bike"? If falls onto the knee are less
>>common, so are falls onto the head.
>May I borrow from the methodology? "Go have some children and see if
>you still ask that question".

This does sound rather like an admission that your position is not
rationally considered but a purely emotional response.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Oneiros, August.