| |
Main
Date: 14 May 2007 05:28:26
From: Useful Info
Subject: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
He was wearing a Giro. Can to tell which model from the photo?
See it via http://Muvy.org
|
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 21:53:03
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
In article <1179166623.106970.72470@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
Camilo <campascual@yahoo.com > writes:
> On May 14, 6:07 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff <kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2007-05-14, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > He was wearing a Giro. Can to tell which model from the photo?
>>
>> > See it viahttp://Muvy.org
>>
>> Good for him, but maybe next time he'll ride *in the damned street* instead
>> of a sidepath, and will avoid such a nasty right-turn hook. Yeesh.
>>
>> --
>>
>> __o Kristian Zoerhoff
>> _'\(,_ kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com
>> (_)/ (_)
>
> I agree with Kristian - this is exactly the sort of danger of riding
> on "bike paths" (usually sidewalks) that are alongside busy streets.
> Sidewalk ("bike path") crossings of intersections are designed for
> pedestrian speeds, not bike speeds. The motorist is probably attuned
> to pedestrian speed crossings.... he looks to make the right turn,
> sees nothing in the general vicinity and turns. The cyclist, going
> 10X the speed of a pedestrian enters the intersection. If the cyclist
> is traveling in the same direction as the driver, the motorist passes
> the cyclist before the intersection. When the motorist gets to the
> intersection, he is concentrating on making a safe turn in traffic.
> The cyclist (again going very much faster than any pedestrian) comes
> out of nowhere into the intersection and really does blind side the
> driver.
This hypothetical scenario sounds more to me like a matter
of the cyclist failing to look and yield. Especially the
part about barging into the intersection at 10X the speed
of a pedestrian.
There's nothing about sidepaths of any sort that prevents
riders from looking and yielding, or forcing them to rush
in where angels fear to tread. And simply riding a bike
doesn't obviate the need for looking and yielding.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2007 10:46:13
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Will wrote:
> >
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree. It looks like it ran over the back pointy portion and may
> >> have kind of squeezed his head away from the tire.
That does seem like a sort of plausible explanation for the results we
can see. It couldn't have "squeezed" that far if the chinstrap had
been done up according to spec.
> > Well... that's how automated shrimp peelers work. They compress the
> > carapace and the body slides out. So perhaps the helmet collapsed
> > while pushing his head away from the tire.
>
> Quite possible. So without the lid the rubber would have grabbed the
> hair/skull and... yech.
Maybe. And maybe it would just have run over just his hair, and the
yech would have been in his pants. Or maybe the extra dimension the
foam hat added to his head was the only thing the tire got purchase
on, and otherwise it would have missed him entirely. Or maybe the
comparative slipperiness of the foam hat's shell was what allowed his
head to skitter far enough to be in harm's way in the first place.
It's all pretty idle speculation from here.
What we do know is that the central assertion of the article, "dude a
truck ran over this dude's head and his helmet totally protected him",
is false. If the truck had gone over his head, no foam hat in the
world, no matter how magical, would have saved him from injury. And
the implication that it did causes more harm than good.
> However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more and more
> likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate.
Agreed.
> If he hadn't been wearing
> a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or vegetative. (Sorry, AHZs,
> that's how it's looking.)
Pretty iffy evidence you've got there for that claim. I suppose if
the guy had been wearing huge raver pants, and he tripped on them and
busted ass in the street and a truck ran over his pants, you'd be
claiming that the pants saved him from certain death or amputation.
I say perhaps, and perhaps not. But to me it's self-evident that the
moment his helmet was mashed flat, his head wasn't in it.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2007 11:56:14
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Chalo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Will wrote:
>>>
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree. It looks like it ran over the back pointy portion and may
>>>> have kind of squeezed his head away from the tire.
>
> That does seem like a sort of plausible explanation for the results we
> can see. It couldn't have "squeezed" that far if the chinstrap had
> been done up according to spec.
>
>>> Well... that's how automated shrimp peelers work. They compress the
>>> carapace and the body slides out. So perhaps the helmet collapsed
>>> while pushing his head away from the tire.
>>
>> Quite possible. So without the lid the rubber would have grabbed the
>> hair/skull and... yech.
>
> Maybe. And maybe it would just have run over just his hair, and the
> yech would have been in his pants. Or maybe the extra dimension the
> foam hat added to his head was the only thing the tire got purchase
> on, and otherwise it would have missed him entirely. Or maybe the
> comparative slipperiness of the foam hat's shell was what allowed his
> head to skitter far enough to be in harm's way in the first place.
> It's all pretty idle speculation from here.
>
> What we do know is that the central assertion of the article, "dude a
> truck ran over this dude's head and his helmet totally protected him",
> is false. If the truck had gone over his head, no foam hat in the
> world, no matter how magical, would have saved him from injury. And
> the implication that it did causes more harm than good.
Funny, I've read three or four different accounts of the incident and the
phrase (or even sentiment) that "dude a
truck ran over this dude's head and his helmet totally protected him"
doesn't appear even once. And the guy's pic sure doesn't LOOK like he's got
ridicluously long hair, either.
>> However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more
>> and more likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> If he hadn't been wearing
>> a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or vegetative. (Sorry,
>> AHZs, that's how it's looking.)
>
> Pretty iffy evidence you've got there for that claim. I suppose if
> the guy had been wearing huge raver pants, and he tripped on them and
> busted ass in the street and a truck ran over his pants, you'd be
> claiming that the pants saved him from certain death or amputation.
>
> I say perhaps, and perhaps not. But to me it's self-evident that the
> moment his helmet was mashed flat, his head wasn't in it.
So you're calling the guy a liar with no proof whatsoever. Why don't you
call or write him or one of the 3-4 reporters who've written up the story
and ask?
Do I think a foam hat will save someone if a heavy vehicle rolls over his or
her head? No. Do I think it's POSSIBLE that the shell -- just like an egg
shell -- can withstand amazing forces in one instance despite being easily
crushed in another? Yes.
Unless the guy is a liar or hoaxster, I think he just got incredibly lucky.
That's what helmets are for -- giving you at least a /chance/ if your noggin
impacts something hard or pointy or edgy or all of the above. Sure beats
not having any protection, despite what the AHZs say (and say and say and
say).
"Do what you want" -- me.
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2007 09:44:42
From: Will
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
On May 15, 11:27 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote:
> I agree. It looks like it ran over the back pointy portion and may have
> kind of squeezed his head away from the tire.
Well... that's how automated shrimp peelers work. They compress the
carapace and the body slides out. So perhaps the helmet collapsed
while pushing his head away from the tire.
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2007 09:51:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Will wrote:
> On May 15, 11:27 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree. It looks like it ran over the back pointy portion and may
>> have kind of squeezed his head away from the tire.
>
> Well... that's how automated shrimp peelers work. They compress the
> carapace and the body slides out. So perhaps the helmet collapsed
> while pushing his head away from the tire.
Quite possible. So without the lid the rubber would have grabbed the
hair/skull and... yech.
However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more and more
likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate. If he hadn't been wearing
a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or vegetative. (Sorry, AHZs,
that's how it's looking.)
|
| | | |
Date: 15 May 2007 13:49:38
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more and more
> likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate. If he hadn't been wearing
> a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or vegetative. (Sorry, AHZs,
> that's how it's looking.)
>
>
How do you know that a cycling/baseball cap wouldn't also have acted to
squeeze his head away from the tire?
Wayne
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 May 2007 11:57:48
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>
>> However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more
>> and more likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate. If he
>> hadn't been wearing a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or
>> vegetative. (Sorry, AHZs, that's how it's looking.)
>>
>>
>
> How do you know that a cycling/baseball cap wouldn't also have acted
> to squeeze his head away from the tire?
ROTFL. A) Assumes facts not in evidence; and B) someone really starched
that cap! ROTFL
Good stuff...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 May 2007 16:15:47
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more
>>>and more likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate. If he
>>>hadn't been wearing a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or
>>>vegetative. (Sorry, AHZs, that's how it's looking.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>How do you know that a cycling/baseball cap wouldn't also have acted
>>to squeeze his head away from the tire?
>
>
> ROTFL. A) Assumes facts not in evidence; and B) someone really starched
> that cap! ROTFL
>
> Good stuff...
Are you rolling on the floor like a fool laughing at yourself?
Read your own conjecture about assuming facts not in evidence, such as
"If he hadn't been wearing a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead
or vegetative."
Wayne
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 May 2007 13:38:50
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more
>>>> and more likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate. If he
>>>> hadn't been wearing a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or
>>>> vegetative. (Sorry, AHZs, that's how it's looking.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know that a cycling/baseball cap wouldn't also have acted
>>> to squeeze his head away from the tire?
>>
>>
>> ROTFL. A) Assumes facts not in evidence; and B) someone really
>> starched that cap! ROTFL
>>
>> Good stuff...
>
> Are you rolling on the floor like a fool laughing at yourself?
>
> Read your own conjecture about assuming facts not in evidence, such as
> "If he hadn't been wearing a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead
> or vegetative."
That was assuming a "FACT" that is indeed "IN EVIDENCE" until proven or
shown otherwise.
But I suppose I /should/ believe a bunch of faceless conjecturing Usenet
e-tards over AP reporters, other reporters, a very graphic PHOTO, etc etc
etc.
I'll repeat: unless the guy is a liar or hoaxster -- which has NOT been
proven in the slightest as yet -- the incident seems pretty clear-cut.
Whether the truck truly rolled over the helmet or just caught the back of it
and sort of squeegeed his head out of the way, the "facts" so far "in
evidence" support the conclusion that the lid saved the guy's skull from
severe or lethal damage. In neither of the two plausible scenarios (again,
unless it's a hoax) would a CAP have performed in any remotely similar
fashion. Thus, the ROTFL that you have merely reinforced.
I know you hate the story. It goes against everything you believe and care
about.
Tough.
>
> Wayne
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 May 2007 17:37:09
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> I'll repeat: unless the guy is a liar or hoaxster -- which has NOT been
> proven in the slightest as yet -- the incident seems pretty clear-cut.
> Whether the truck truly rolled over the helmet or just caught the back of it
> and sort of squeegeed his head out of the way, the "facts" so far "in
> evidence" support the conclusion that the lid saved the guy's skull from
> severe or lethal damage. In neither of the two plausible scenarios (again,
> unless it's a hoax) would a CAP have performed in any remotely similar
> fashion. Thus, the ROTFL that you have merely reinforced.
>
> I know you hate the story. It goes against everything you believe and care
> about.
>
> Tough.
>
No, you can't even see how you make things up to fit your ideology. The
wheel could have hit the back part of the helmet that extends out from
the head. Thus if he didn't have a helmet on the wheel may not have hit
his head at all.
I don't hate the story. I hate ignorance. There is nothing to support
your conclusion that he would have been killed or vegetative without a
helmet.
The incident appears clear cut to only you, a person rolling on the
floor laughing.
Wayne
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 May 2007 16:02:32
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
First he says:
> ... you can't even see how you make things up to fit your ideology.
THEN he says:
> The wheel could have hit the back part of the helmet that extends
> out from the head. Thus if he didn't have a helmet on the wheel may
> not have hit his head at all.
Yeah, *I* am the one making things up (AKA reading the articles).
ROTFL
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 May 2007 11:49:11
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
> First he says:
>
>
>>... you can't even see how you make things up to fit your ideology.
>
>
> THEN he says:
>
>
>>The wheel could have hit the back part of the helmet that extends
>>out from the head. Thus if he didn't have a helmet on the wheel may
>>not have hit his head at all.
>
>
> Yeah, *I* am the one making things up (AKA reading the articles).
>
> ROTFL
>
>
>
Do you see the words *could* and *may* that I wrote? And if you believe
every word you read in a newspaper as absolute truth I can see why you
are always rolling on the floor like a fool laughing.
Wayne
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 May 2007 09:09:36
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>> First he says:
>>
>>
>>> ... you can't even see how you make things up to fit your ideology.
>>
>>
>> THEN he says:
>>
>>
>>> The wheel could have hit the back part of the helmet that extends
>>> out from the head. Thus if he didn't have a helmet on the wheel may
>>> not have hit his head at all.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, *I* am the one making things up (AKA reading the articles).
>>
>> ROTFL
>>
>>
>>
>
> Do you see the words *could* and *may* that I wrote?
Yes. "Could" and "may" are tantamount to conjecture ("making things up" to
use your unfounded accusation).
I read the articles (plural). I looked at the photo. Unless or until it's
shown that the "victim" is either a liar or a hoaxster, I take him and what
I assume are professional reporters (including an AP writer) at their
word(s).
You and others, OTOH, are inventing various excuses/explanations, and then
having the temerity to say that *I* and others are "making things up".
Sorry, I find that laughable. (Almost as much as your selective trimming as
this exchange continued; now it's over.)
You should get a job showing films. You really are quite a projector!
I'll leave readers to read the /entire/ thread and decide who's doing the
imaginative interpretation(s) of the reported incident.
Buh-bye, BS
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 May 2007 12:20:38
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> I read the articles (plural). I looked at the photo. Unless or until it's
> shown that the "victim" is either a liar or a hoaxster, I take him and what
> I assume are professional reporters (including an AP writer) at their
> word(s).
>
> You and others, OTOH, are inventing various excuses/explanations, and then
> having the temerity to say that *I* and others are "making things up".
No, you are ignorant of physics. If the helmet was crushed as in the
photo and his head was in it at the crushed part, his head would have
been crushed too. Therefore, his head could not have been in the crushed
part of the helmet. Thus his head did not get run over; the helmet got
run over.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 19:01:48
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Useful Info wrote:
>
> He was wearing a Giro. Can to tell which model from the photo?
>
> See it via http://Muvy.org
I smell a rat.
I don't weigh as much as a truck, but I can smash a foam hat flat by
stepping on it. From the looks of that helmet, it does not appear to
have any meaningful structural integrity left, so it makes me wonder
how it could have protected that guy if a truck actually ran over his
head, as the article suggests.
To me it looks like the truck ran over the hat, but not the head. Do
you have a hypothesis for how the hat could have been flattened
without damage to his head, if his head was in it at the time?
More magical thinking! That will save us!
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2007 12:27:16
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
Chalo wrote:
> I smell a rat.
>
> I don't weigh as much as a truck, but I can smash a foam hat flat by
> stepping on it. From the looks of that helmet, it does not appear to
> have any meaningful structural integrity left, so it makes me wonder
> how it could have protected that guy if a truck actually ran over his
> head, as the article suggests.
>
> To me it looks like the truck ran over the hat, but not the head. Do
> you have a hypothesis for how the hat could have been flattened
> without damage to his head, if his head was in it at the time?
I agree. It looks like it ran over the back pointy portion and may have
kind of squeezed his head away from the tire.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 11:17:03
From: Camilo
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
On May 14, 6:07 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff <kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On 2007-05-14, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > He was wearing a Giro. Can to tell which model from the photo?
>
> > See it viahttp://Muvy.org
>
> Good for him, but maybe next time he'll ride *in the damned street* instead
> of a sidepath, and will avoid such a nasty right-turn hook. Yeesh.
>
> --
>
> __o Kristian Zoerhoff
> _'\(,_ kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com
> (_)/ (_)
I agree with Kristian - this is exactly the sort of danger of riding
on "bike paths" (usually sidewalks) that are alongside busy streets.
Sidewalk ("bike path") crossings of intersections are designed for
pedestrian speeds, not bike speeds. The motorist is probably attuned
to pedestrian speed crossings.... he looks to make the right turn,
sees nothing in the general vicinity and turns. The cyclist, going
10X the speed of a pedestrian enters the intersection. If the cyclist
is traveling in the same direction as the driver, the motorist passes
the cyclist before the intersection. When the motorist gets to the
intersection, he is concentrating on making a safe turn in traffic.
The cyclist (again going very much faster than any pedestrian) comes
out of nowhere into the intersection and really does blind side the
driver. I think the cyclist was irresponsible for putting himself
and the motorist in this position.
I'm not saying the motorist is not at fault, but it is a major design
flaw, a set up for accidents. It has happened to me (as a motorist),
and I am acutely attuned to cyclists being one myself. I haven't hit
someone, but it could happen even in spite of being careful. As a
cyclist, if I'm riding a "bike path" (sidewalk), I feel it's my
responsibility to avoid this. Sure the motorist should, but we have
to realize it is just a set up for problems and do what we can to
avoid them.
Worse yet, it could have totally been the cyclist's fault. He says
there was a white walk sign, but it is VERY COMMON for cyclists on
"bike paths" (again, I call them sidewalks) to follow the *street
signals* not the *pedestrian signals*. Pedestrian signals do NOT
follow traffic signals. It is very common to have a green light
(allowing right turn w/o yield) and the pedestrian signal is "don't
walk". In fact, this is another flaw in the "bike path" (sidewalk)
mentality: the walk signal OFTEN doesn't light unless the pedestrian
pushes the button. And a cyclist often doesn't stop to push the
button.
Isn't it telling that the signals on the "bike path" are walk/don't
walk? Doesn't this indicate the path is designed for pedestrians, not
cyclists?
I've almost hit several cyclists who are riding fast on a "bike
path" (sidewalk) who blow through DON'T WALK signals becuase the
traffic light is green. In the time I'm waiting to make a safe
(especially left) turn, the cyclist can literally come out of nowhere
and if they blow through the don't walk sign when I'm committed to
making the turn, It's a BIG problem. Do I procede and hit the
cyclist? Of course not - but the alternative is to stop and get hit
myself from on coming traffic.
Cyclists often dont' realize (a) they need to follow the pedestrian
signals if they're on the "bike path" (sidewalk) and (b) if they blow
through a don't walk sign, they are at grave danger of being hit by
cars turning off the parallel road. If they're traveling in the same
direction as the motorist, they are apporaching from the motorist's
blind spot, therefore compounding the danger.
I hope there's solid proof of the cyclist having a "Walk" signal
before the motorist is crucified.
Don't ride on sidewalks!
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 14:07:32
From: Kristian M Zoerhoff
Subject: Re: Bicyclist's head run over by truck
|
On 2007-05-14, Useful Info <useful_inf@yahoo.com > wrote:
> He was wearing a Giro. Can to tell which model from the photo?
>
> See it via http://Muvy.org
Good for him, but maybe next time he'll ride *in the damned street* instead
of a sidepath, and will avoid such a nasty right-turn hook. Yeesh.
--
__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com
(_)/ (_)
|
|
