| |
Main
Date: 03 Oct 2007 00:39:44
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8052B.FD1BCF90
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,=20
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
and on the web here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=3D778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4=
D9A76B2&sc=3DI100322
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
(note the different headlines!)
This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists =
(anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute =
(pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a =
significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" =
(anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between =
1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of =
bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other =
cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that =
when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If =
people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they =
should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, =
perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they =
do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or =
Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For =
example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is =
useless for standard cars.=20
This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's =
interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet =
debate makes it into a general interest publication.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8052B.FD1BCF90
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML ><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1" >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"" >
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>From the October 2007 Scientific =
American in print,=20
</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Do Helmets Attract Cars to =
Cyclists?</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>and on the web here:<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=3D778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3=
594A60E4D9A76B2&sc=3DI100322" >http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl=
eID=3D778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&sc=3DI100322</A ><BR>Strange=
=20
but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(note the different headlines!)</DIV>
<DIV ><BR><BR>This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the=20
following:<BR ><BR>1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to =
cyclists=20
(anti-helmet)<BR >2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety =
Institute=20
(pro-helmet)<BR >3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws =
"did=20
not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head =
injuries"=20
(anti-helmet)<BR >4. New York City report showing that of the 225 =
cyclists dying=20
between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets.=20
(pro-helmet)<BR ><BR>It ends in a wishy-washy manner:<BR>"Walker, whose=20
much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded =
riders, won't=20
make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will =
Scientific=20
American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, =
motorists=20
are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet =
makes=20
them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide =
it=20
doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, =
"But they=20
do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."<BR ><BR>It's not =
apparent=20
in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" =
and=20
designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July =
column=20
definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars. =
</DIV >
<DIV > </DIV>
<DIV >This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's=20
interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet =
debate=20
makes it into a general interest publication.</FONT ></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8052B.FD1BCF90--
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 23:11:03
From: nmp
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2007 11:07:46 GMT, nmp <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>frkrygow wrote:
[..]
>>> Prissy Americans with their seldom-used toys think they know more than
>>> cultures that actually _ride_ bicycles. It's a little laughable.
>>Indeed. Seen this? <http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/>
> I hate this topic ... like many other people do. I don't care what you
> wear or don't wear, but ... until you've spent any time in the
> Netherlands (I was there for 3wks last year), please spare me the
> comparisons between their country and ours vis-a-vis helmets.
Look, the pictures on the page I pointed at are just funny, as is the
pseudo-amazed, slightly ironic commentary. There was (for me) no purpose
beyond providing an entertaining look at things. K?
With regard to spending time in the Netherlands: being Dutch and having
lived here all my life except a few years, I think I do have a bit of an
idea.
> In THEIR country, there is a legislative bias IN FAVOR of cyclists that
> has -- over decades -- permeated into the culture.
Either way, it has nothing to do with wearing helmets or not. Except they
are indeed not mandatory and nobody is seriously interested in changing
that.
> THEIR country doesn't have a hill worth talking about in 90% of its
> geography. That means that EVERYBODY bikes ... because everybody CAN
> bike.
But not everybody can or does. Especially in the slightly hilly parts,
but everywhere else too, a sizable minority would *never* cycle. Does
that surprise you, perhaps?
> That means that EVERYBODY who operates a CAR ALSO has a pretty good
> chance of being a CYCLIST. THAT means they're more in tune with the
> cyclist and their needs.
Like everywhere else in the world, when people step behind the wheel of a
car in the Netherlands they are likely to quickly forget about the needs
of cyclists... But they are more used (than motorists in lots of other
countries) to seeing bicycles on the streets, that would probably be
true. It doesn't mean that motorists will always treat cyclists kindly or
favourably. We also have quite the "bicycle infrastructure" (bicycle
paths and lanes) that is designed to separate bicycles and the lightest
class of mopeds (max. 25 km/h) from "real" (motorised) traffic. Of course
this system does somewhat less than a perfect job. But it exists.
> We're not Holland ... and Holland isn't us.
True. Holland, BTW, is but a region in the Netherlands. But you knew that.
> Back to your battle. Thanks.
Was there a battle? Oh, good :)
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 10:07:16
From:
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Oct 10, 11:55 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> I hate this topic ... like many other people do.
Then why bother reading it, and why bother posting to it? It's not a
mandatory topic, you know!
> I don't care what
> you wear or don't wear, but ... until you've spent any time in the
> Netherlands (I was there for 3wks last year), please spare me the
> comparisons between their country and ours vis-a-vis helmets.
>
> In THEIR country, there is a legislative bias IN FAVOR of cyclists
> that has -- over decades -- permeated into the culture.
>
> THEIR country doesn't have a hill worth talking about in 90% of its
> geography. That means that EVERYBODY bikes ... because everybody CAN
> bike.
>
> That means that EVERYBODY who operates a CAR ALSO has a pretty good
> chance of being a CYCLIST. THAT means they're more in tune with the
> cyclist and their needs.
>
> We're not Holland ... and Holland isn't us.
I don't disagree with anything you said about Holland. However, if
you're implying that therefore, Americans (or Brits, or Australians,
or anyone else) should wear helmets, your post has done nothing to
prove that.
And it still remains true that the incidence of helmet wearing across
countries seems to vary inversely with bicycle use. IOW, it's only
countries where cycling is rare that ordinary cycling is considered an
"extreme sport," needing protective gear.
Yet there is, AFAICT, no country where ordinary bicycling's risk of
serious head injury rises to a level to justify helmet use.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 09:26:56
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Oct 6, 9:59 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invaalid.com > wrote:
> Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> >>> From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
> >>> Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
> >>> and on the web here:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60...
> >>> Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
> >>> (note the different headlines!)
> >>> This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
> >>> 1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
> >>> 2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
> >>> 3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
> >>> 4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
> >>> It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
> >>> "Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
> >>> It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.
> >>> This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
> >> OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
> >> 300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
> >> apiece.
>
> > Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
> > (Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
> > That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(
>
> Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days. ;)
>
Figures you would be the aforementioned "some idiot" to cross post to
URC.
Do you spit or swallow, Sherman?
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 11:07:46
From: nmp
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
frkrygow wrote:
> On Oct 4, 7:00 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191418317.028734.146590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 3, 3:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>>
>> > Hmm. That included Albert Einstein, according to the photo hanging
>> > in my office.
>>
>> >http://www.einsteinsbicycle.com/
>>
>> > - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> If they were available then, I'm sure Einstein would have worn a
>> helmet.
>
> Doubtful. He hadn't been exposed to the false propaganda claiming that
> bicyclists are at significant risk for serious head injuries. And if he
> had been exposed to the propaganda, he would have had enough
> mathematical sense to realize it was hype.
>
> Besides, he lived in a culture where cycling was (and is) considered a
> normal way to get around. It was not treated as a fancy equipment,
> special clothing, extreme sport.
>
> Switzerland is still that way. So is this place:
>
> http://www.domela.com/photos_people/projects_fietsen/
web_preview_2006.pdf
>
> Or this place:
>
> http://www.denniscox.com/BeijingBicycles.jpg
>
> Prissy Americans with their seldom-used toys think they know more than
> cultures that actually _ride_ bicycles. It's a little laughable.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Indeed. Seen this? <http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/ >
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 15:55:55
From: Neil Brooks
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On 10 Oct 2007 11:07:46 GMT, nmp <address@is.invalid > wrote:
>frkrygow wrote:
>
>> On Oct 4, 7:00 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1191418317.028734.146590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > On Oct 3, 3:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>>>
>>> > Hmm. That included Albert Einstein, according to the photo hanging
>>> > in my office.
>>>
>>> >http://www.einsteinsbicycle.com/
>>>
>>> > - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>> If they were available then, I'm sure Einstein would have worn a
>>> helmet.
>>
>> Doubtful. He hadn't been exposed to the false propaganda claiming that
>> bicyclists are at significant risk for serious head injuries. And if he
>> had been exposed to the propaganda, he would have had enough
>> mathematical sense to realize it was hype.
>>
>> Besides, he lived in a culture where cycling was (and is) considered a
>> normal way to get around. It was not treated as a fancy equipment,
>> special clothing, extreme sport.
>>
>> Switzerland is still that way. So is this place:
>>
>> http://www.domela.com/photos_people/projects_fietsen/
>web_preview_2006.pdf
>>
>> Or this place:
>>
>> http://www.denniscox.com/BeijingBicycles.jpg
>>
>> Prissy Americans with their seldom-used toys think they know more than
>> cultures that actually _ride_ bicycles. It's a little laughable.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>Indeed. Seen this? <http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/>
I hate this topic ... like many other people do. I don't care what
you wear or don't wear, but ... until you've spent any time in the
Netherlands (I was there for 3wks last year), please spare me the
comparisons between their country and ours vis-a-vis helmets.
In THEIR country, there is a legislative bias IN FAVOR of cyclists
that has -- over decades -- permeated into the culture.
THEIR country doesn't have a hill worth talking about in 90% of its
geography. That means that EVERYBODY bikes ... because everybody CAN
bike.
That means that EVERYBODY who operates a CAR ALSO has a pretty good
chance of being a CYCLIST. THAT means they're more in tune with the
cyclist and their needs.
We're not Holland ... and Holland isn't us.
Back to your battle. Thanks.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 22:51:07
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
In article <470ae54b$0$26387$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invaalidd.com > writes:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>> Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your
>>> life." At least be consistent in your baiting.
>>
>> Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this shit.
>
> Helmet discussions are FUN!
As much fun as bickerfests with yer Significant Other.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 17:53:28
From: Jorg Lueke
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Oct 4, 3:38 am, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:39:44 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Mike
> > Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> >> it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that
> >> the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
>
> > Uh... Scientific American *is* a general interest publication.
> > Always has been. It's certainly not a peer reviewed journal.
>
> I write it's in Scientific American, meaning the helmet debate made it into
> a general interest publication.
> You correct me by noting that Scientific American is a general interest
> publication.
>
> ????
>
Beautiful!
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 12:13:12
From:
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Oct 4, 12:43 pm, David Bonnell <dbonn...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > "Ein kluger Kopf pa=DFt in keinem Helm"
>
> > (A intelligent head doesn't fit in any helmet)
>
> > Even though he probably only meant soldiers helmets with that, maybe you
> > should think about that.
>
> Let's paraphrase the quote:
> "Only stupid people are capable of wearing helmets"
>
> And by extension:
> "Anyone who wears a helmet is stupid"
>
> Should we really be taking advice from a guy who rides his bike in a
> wool sweater, pants, and shiny shoes? I'd say his saddle looks a bit
> low for maximum pedalling efficiency too.
:-) Well, as we all know in America, a person is not really a
"cyclist" unless they wear skintight lycra shorts, a special jersey
covered with manufacturer's advertisements, special shoes that one
can't walk in, special gloves, aerodynamic sunglasses, socks with
logos, and so on. Right? ;-)
IOW, there's only one cyclist in all these photographs:
http://www.domela.com/photos_people/projects_fietsen/web_preview_2006.pdf
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 08:30:06
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
: IOW, there's only one cyclist in all these photographs:
: http://www.domela.com/photos_people/projects_fietsen/web_preview_2006.pdf
May be only one cyclist there, but I see two crazy people...
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 09:43:20
From: David Bonnell
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
> "Ein kluger Kopf pa=DFt in keinem Helm"
>
> (A intelligent head doesn't fit in any helmet)
>
> Even though he probably only meant soldiers helmets with that, maybe you
> should think about that.
Let's paraphrase the quote:
"Only stupid people are capable of wearing helmets"
And by extension:
"Anyone who wears a helmet is stupid"
Should we really be taking advice from a guy who rides his bike in a
wool sweater, pants, and shiny shoes? I'd say his saddle looks a bit
low for maximum pedalling efficiency too.
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 07:41:35
From:
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Oct 4, 7:00 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191418317.028734.146590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 3, 3:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
> > wrote:
>
> >> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>
> > Hmm. That included Albert Einstein, according to the photo hanging in
> > my office.
>
> >http://www.einsteinsbicycle.com/
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> If they were available then, I'm sure Einstein would have worn a helmet.
Doubtful. He hadn't been exposed to the false propaganda claiming
that bicyclists are at significant risk for serious head injuries.
And if he had been exposed to the propaganda, he would have had enough
mathematical sense to realize it was hype.
Besides, he lived in a culture where cycling was (and is) considered a
normal way to get around. It was not treated as a fancy equipment,
special clothing, extreme sport.
Switzerland is still that way. So is this place:
http://www.domela.com/photos_people/projects_fietsen/web_preview_2006.pdf
Or this place:
http://www.denniscox.com/BeijingBicycles.jpg
Prissy Americans with their seldom-used toys think they know more than
cultures that actually _ride_ bicycles. It's a little laughable.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 07:10:13
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
> > Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
>
> > and on the web here:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60...
> > Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
>
> > (note the different headlines!)
>
> > This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
>
> > 1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
> > 2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
> > 3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
> > 4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
>
> > It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
> > "Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
>
> > It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.
>
> > This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
>
> OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
> 300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
> apiece.
>
>
Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
(Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 21:59:12
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote:
> On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
>>> Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
>>> and on the web here:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60...
>>> Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
>>> (note the different headlines!)
>>> This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
>>> 1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
>>> 2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
>>> 3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
>>> 4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
>>> It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
>>> "Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
>>> It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.
>>> This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
>> OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
>> 300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
>> apiece.
>
> Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
> (Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
> That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(
Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 08:05:32
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
in message <47083f90$0$26437$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >, Tom "Johnny
Sunset" Sherman ('sunsetss0003@invaalid.com') wrote:
> Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
>>>> Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
>>> OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
>>> 300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
>>> apiece.
>>
>> Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
>> (Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
>> That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(
>
> Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days. ;)
And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under.
Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to
be clever enough to assemble them?
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 09:37:05
From: Roger Merriman
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> in message <47083f90$0$26437$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, Tom "Johnny
> Sunset" Sherman ('sunsetss0003@invaalid.com') wrote:
>
> > Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote:
> >> On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
> >>>> Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
> >>> OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
> >>> 300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
> >>> apiece.
> >>
> >> Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots
> >> (Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings.
> >> That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-(
> >
> > Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days. ;)
>
> And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under.
> Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to
> be clever enough to assemble them?
get them cold enought they get dangeriously intellectual.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:50:18
From: Don Whybrow
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under.
> Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to
> be clever enough to assemble them?
Well, looking at an on-line translator the Swedish for bridge is
"brygga" and entering that into the IKEA website returns the following
item, which might suite the mentality of a troll.
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00060763
--
Don Whybrow
Sequi Bonum Non Time
People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun.
There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 20:01:03
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 08:05:32 +0100, Simon Brooke
<simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
>And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under.
>Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to
>be clever enough to assemble them?
Ozark ain't that bright - his must be a pre-assembled one.
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 10:05:10
From:
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
> Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
>
> and on the web here:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60...
> Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
>
> (note the different headlines!)
>
> This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
>
> 1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
> 2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
> 3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
> 4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
>
> It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
> "Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
>
> It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.
>
> This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200,
300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts
apiece.
Smokey
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 14:34:29
From: DennisTheBald
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
Ad hominem attacks on people who hold a different view are not a sign
of superior intellect. Therefore, by your logic, I would have to
conclude that you must have been using a defective helmet.
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 13:31:57
From:
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Oct 3, 3:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:
>
>
> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
Hmm. That included Albert Einstein, according to the photo hanging in
my office.
http://www.einsteinsbicycle.com/
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 07:00:11
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1191418317.028734.146590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 3:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>
> Hmm. That included Albert Einstein, according to the photo hanging in
> my office.
>
> http://www.einsteinsbicycle.com/
>
> - Frank Krygowski
If they were available then, I'm sure Einstein would have worn a helmet.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 15:29:04
From: Ingo Keck
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Gooserider <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
[...]
> If they were available then, I'm sure Einstein would have worn a helmet.
A well known quote from him is:
"Ein kluger Kopf paßt in keinem Helm"
(A intelligent head doesn't fit in any helmet)
Even though he probably only meant soldiers helmets with that, maybe you
should think about that.
Ingo.
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 11:08:46
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Oct 3, 2:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:03:09 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bill
>
> Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> > > I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
> > > But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
> > > helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
> > > cut.
>
> > Hardly.
>
> Yeah, I'd rather keep my hair and avoid the road rash (and impact
> damage).
>
> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack without
any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis pump.
Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think you're
a cocksucker.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:28:46
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:08:46 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Oct 3, 2:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:03:09 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bill
>>
>> Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> > > I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
>> > > But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
>> > > helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
>> > > cut.
>>
>> > Hardly.
>>
>> Yeah, I'd rather keep my hair and avoid the road rash (and impact
>> damage).
>>
>> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>
>Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack without
>any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis pump.
>
>Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think you're
>a cocksucker.
Something wrong with cocksuckers? I rather like them.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 08:02:24
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:08:46 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
>> wrote:
>>> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>> Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack
>> without any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis pump.
>>
>> Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think you're
>> a cocksucker.
A rather vanilla comment draws a vile invective, including the latter (rat)
accusing the former of ad hominem! Classic hypocrisy, rudeness and
classlessness.
Doesn't get much better LOL
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 21:51:11
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:08:46 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 2:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>
>>> Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack
>>> without any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis pump.
>>>
>>> Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think you're
>>> a cocksucker.
>
> A rather vanilla comment draws a vile invective, including the latter (rat)
> accusing the former of ad hominem! Classic hypocrisy, rudeness and
> classlessness.
>
> Doesn't get much better LOL
Earth to Planet Sorni - Dennis P. Harris started with the insults.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:16:16
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:08:46 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 3, 2:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>>
>>>> Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack
>>>> without any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis pump.
>>>>
>>>> Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think
>>>> you're a cocksucker.
>>
>> A rather vanilla comment draws a vile invective, including the
>> latter (rat) accusing the former of ad hominem! Classic hypocrisy,
>> rudeness and classlessness.
>>
>> Doesn't get much better LOL
> Earth to Planet Sorni - Dennis P. Harris started with the insults.
He said something mildly insulting (it's still at the top of this...see?).
For that he was called a cocksucker -- ironic, considering the source.
HTH (but know it won't)... BS
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 22:35:13
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:08:46 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 3, 2:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>>>>> Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack
>>>>> without any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis pump.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think
>>>>> you're a cocksucker.
>>> A rather vanilla comment draws a vile invective, including the
>>> latter (rat) accusing the former of ad hominem! Classic hypocrisy,
>>> rudeness and classlessness.
>>>
>>> Doesn't get much better LOL
>
>> Earth to Planet Sorni - Dennis P. Harris started with the insults.
>
> He said something mildly insulting (it's still at the top of this...see?).
> For that he was called a cocksucker -- ironic, considering the source.
The "source"? Citation, please.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:38:37
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:08:46 -0000, landotter
>>>>> <landotter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2:03 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
>>>>>> Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack
>>>>>> without any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis
>>>>>> pump. Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think
>>>>>> you're a cocksucker.
>>>> A rather vanilla comment draws a vile invective, including the
>>>> latter (rat) accusing the former of ad hominem! Classic hypocrisy,
>>>> rudeness and classlessness.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't get much better LOL
>>> Earth to Planet Sorni - Dennis P. Harris started with the insults.
>> He said something mildly insulting (it's still at the top of
>> this...see?). For that he was called a cocksucker -- ironic,
>> considering the source.
> The "source"? Citation, please.
The name-caller is the embodiment of the very vile invective invoked.
HTH (yada yada yada)
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 23:05:00
From: Dennis P. Harris
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:39:44 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Mike
Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
Uh... Scientific American *is* a general interest publication.
Always has been. It's certainly not a peer reviewed journal.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 02:38:21
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:39:44 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Mike
> Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that
>> the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.
>
> Uh... Scientific American *is* a general interest publication.
> Always has been. It's certainly not a peer reviewed journal.
I write it's in Scientific American, meaning the helmet debate made it into
a general interest publication.
You correct me by noting that Scientific American is a general interest
publication.
????
--
Mike Kruger
Give no quarter to the paradigm people.
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 06:22:24
From: nash
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8054B.14C06BA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message =
news:kxBMi.30658$eY.21112@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,=20
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
and on the web here:
=
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=3D778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4=
D9A76B2&sc=3DI100322
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
(note the different headlines!)
This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists =
(anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute =
(pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have =
a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" =
(anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between =
1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of =
bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other =
cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that =
when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If =
people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they =
should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, =
perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they =
do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact =
or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For =
example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is =
useless for standard cars.=20
This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's =
interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet =
debate makes it into a general interest publication.
Next topic : Does wearing your helmut in Iraq attract bullets.
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8054B.14C06BA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML ><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1" >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"" >
<DIV ><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" >
<DIV >"Mike Kruger" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:MikeKr@mouse-potato.com" >MikeKr@mouse-potato.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:kxBMi.30658$eY.21112@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net" >news:kxBMi.=
30658$eY.21112@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net</A >...</DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>From the October 2007 Scientific =
American in=20
print, </FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Do Helmets Attract Cars to =
Cyclists?</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>and on the web here:<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=3D778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3=
594A60E4D9A76B2&sc=3DI100322" >http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl=
eID=3D778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&sc=3DI100322</A ><BR>Strange=
=20
but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(note the different headlines!)</DIV>
<DIV ><BR><BR>This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the=20
following:<BR ><BR>1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars =
to=20
cyclists (anti-helmet)<BR >2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle =
Helmet Safety=20
Institute (pro-helmet)<BR >3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory =
helmet=20
laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting =
in head=20
injuries" (anti-helmet)<BR >4. New York City report showing that of the =
225=20
cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not =
wearing=20
helmets. (pro-helmet)<BR ><BR>It ends in a wishy-washy =
manner:<BR >"Walker,=20
whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of =
bareheaded=20
riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and =
neither=20
will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to =
riding in=20
traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research =
and=20
decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read =
the=20
research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker =
says,=20
adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch =
out for=20
cars."<BR ><BR>It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is =
called=20
"Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular =
myths".=20
For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is =
useless=20
for standard cars. </DIV >
<DIV > </DIV>
<DIV >This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's=20
interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the =
helmet debate=20
makes it into a general interest publication.</DIV >
<DIV > </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DTahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DTahoma>Next topic : Does wearing your helmut in Iraq =
attract=20
bullets.</FONT ></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8054B.14C06BA0--
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:18:22
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:39:44 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
<MikeKr@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
>Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
>
>and on the web here:
>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&sc=I100322
>Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
>
>(note the different headlines!)
>
>
>This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
>
>1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
>2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
>3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
>4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
>
>It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
>"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."
Are you sure he's a reporter, and not a politician in training?
Pat
Email address works as is.
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:18:40
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:kxBMi.30658$eY.21112@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?
and on the web here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&sc=I100322
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
(note the different headlines!)
This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:
1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a
significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries"
(anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996
and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)
It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of
bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists
(and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes
to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the
research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they
read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker
says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch
out for cars."
It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or
Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example,
the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for
standard cars.
This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting
because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it
into a general interest publication.
---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that the
truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on my
naked skull. :-)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 22:08:47
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote
>
> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
> believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that the
> truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on
> my naked skull. :-)
I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help. But
then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet in
contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear cut.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 06:59:38
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>
>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
>> believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that
>> the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no
>> effect on my naked skull. :-)
>
> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help. But
> then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet in
> contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear cut.
Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact to my naked
skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 08:06:03
From: Cathy Kearns
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>>
>>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
>>> believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that
>>> the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no
>>> effect on my naked skull. :-)
>>
>> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
>> But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet
>> in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear cut.
>
> Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact to my
> naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly possible that
withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the truck mirror would have
missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My helmet is very useful for the
times my captain ducks without telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm
thinking otherwise the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt.
(And I happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches are
just part of life.)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 17:40:15
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
>>>> believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that
>>>> the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no
>>>> effect on my naked skull. :-)
>>>
>>> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
>>> But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet
>>> in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear cut.
>>
>> Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact to my
>> naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
>
> I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly possible that
> withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the truck mirror would have
> missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My helmet is very useful for the
> times my captain ducks without telling me, and a branch hits my helmet.
> I'm thinking otherwise the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would
> hurt. (And I happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches
> are just part of life.)
>
He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above the brain
stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 18:01:00
From: Cathy Kearns
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:47055dc0$0$15345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>> news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
>>>>> believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that
>>>>> the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no
>>>>> effect on my naked skull. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
>>>> But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
>>>> helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
>>>> cut.
>>>
>>> Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact to my
>>> naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
>>
>> I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly possible
>> that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the truck mirror would
>> have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My helmet is very useful for
>> the times my captain ducks without telling me, and a branch hits my
>> helmet. I'm thinking otherwise the branch would grab my hair, and yeah,
>> that would hurt. (And I happen to love the captain, so occasionally
>> uncalled branches are just part of life.)
>>
>
> He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above the brain
> stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
Ahh, additional information is always helpful.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 08:33:54
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Cathy Kearns wrote:
:: "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
:: news:47055dc0$0$15345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
:::
::: "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote in message
::: news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
::::
:::: "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
:::: news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
:::::
::::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote in message
::::: news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
::::::
:::::: "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote
:::::::
::::::: ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an
::::::: impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study
::::::: will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my helmet
::::::: at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull. :-)
::::::
:::::: I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did
:::::: help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement
:::::: with your helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation
:::::: is less clear cut.
:::::
::::: Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact
::::: to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
::::
:::: I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly
:::: possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the
:::: truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My
:::: helmet is very useful for the times my captain ducks without
:::: telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm thinking otherwise
:::: the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt. (And I
:::: happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches are
:::: just part of life.)
::::
:::
::: He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above the
::: brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
::
:: Ahh, additional information is always helpful.
Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still, that's
a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 17:39:01
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:13gcbpgas4b1a4@news.supernews.com...
> Cathy Kearns wrote:
> :: "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> :: news:47055dc0$0$15345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> :::
> ::: "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ::: news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> ::::
> :::: "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> :::: news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> :::::
> ::::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ::::: news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
> ::::::
> :::::: "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> :::::::
> ::::::: ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an
> ::::::: impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study
> ::::::: will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my helmet
> ::::::: at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull. :-)
> ::::::
> :::::: I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did
> :::::: help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement
> :::::: with your helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation
> :::::: is less clear cut.
> :::::
> ::::: Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact
> ::::: to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
> ::::
> :::: I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly
> :::: possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the
> :::: truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My
> :::: helmet is very useful for the times my captain ducks without
> :::: telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm thinking otherwise
> :::: the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt. (And I
> :::: happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches are
> :::: just part of life.)
> ::::
> :::
> ::: He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above the
> ::: brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
> ::
> :: Ahh, additional information is always helpful.
>
> Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still,
> that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike.
It didn't necessariy save my life, but it definitely prevented me from
having a serious injury. I was hit, started to flip, lost consciousness, and
woke up to a bunch of people amazed I was alive. I'm pretty surprised I
didn't end up with a broken neck or a concussion.
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:20:50
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:4706aef3$0$32467$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13gcbpgas4b1a4@news.supernews.com...
>> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>> :: "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>> :: news:47055dc0$0$15345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> :::
>> ::: "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> ::: news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>> ::::
>> :::: "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>> :::: news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> :::::
>> ::::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> ::::: news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>> ::::::
>> :::::: "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>> :::::::
>> ::::::: ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an
>> ::::::: impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study
>> ::::::: will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my helmet
>> ::::::: at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull. :-)
>> ::::::
>> :::::: I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did
>> :::::: help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement
>> :::::: with your helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation
>> :::::: is less clear cut.
>> :::::
>> ::::: Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact
>> ::::: to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
>> ::::
>> :::: I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly
>> :::: possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the
>> :::: truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My
>> :::: helmet is very useful for the times my captain ducks without
>> :::: telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm thinking otherwise
>> :::: the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt. (And I
>> :::: happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches are
>> :::: just part of life.)
>> ::::
>> :::
>> ::: He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above the
>> ::: brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
>> ::
>> :: Ahh, additional information is always helpful.
>>
>> Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still,
>> that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike.
> It didn't necessariy save my life, but it definitely prevented me from
> having a serious injury.
Any serious head injury could result in loss of life.
> I was hit, started to flip, lost consciousness, and woke up to a bunch of
> people amazed I was alive.
Rightly so.
> I'm pretty surprised I didn't end up with a broken neck or a concussion.
>>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 17:10:27
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Gooserider wrote:
>
>>Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still,
>>that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike.
>
> It didn't necessariy save my life, but it definitely prevented me from
> having a serious injury. I was hit, started to flip, lost consciousness, and
> woke up to a bunch of people amazed I was alive. I'm pretty surprised I
> didn't end up with a broken neck or a concussion.
>
I remember your original account. Glad it turned out as well as it did
for you.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 10:03:48
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47055dc0$0$15345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an
>>>>>>>> impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study
>>>>>>>> will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my helmet
>>>>>>>> at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did
>>>>>>> help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement
>>>>>>> with your helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation
>>>>>>> is less clear cut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact
>>>>>> to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly
>>>>> possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the
>>>>> truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My
>>>>> helmet is very useful for the times my captain ducks without
>>>>> telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm thinking otherwise
>>>>> the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt. (And I
>>>>> happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches are
>>>>> just part of life.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above the
>>>> brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
>>>
>>> Ahh, additional information is always helpful.
>
> Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still,
> that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike.
He didn't say it saved his life; he said it almost certainly prevented
serious injury.
As for the unlikely part, I've had right-side rear view mirrors come very
close to hitting me numerous times. I'd guess that it's a fairly common
cause of cyclist injury -- from quite minor to severe.
HTH
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:19:34
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:47066e78$0$18980$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:47055dc0$0$15345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an
>>>>>>>>> impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study
>>>>>>>>> will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my helmet
>>>>>>>>> at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did
>>>>>>>> help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement
>>>>>>>> with your helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation
>>>>>>>> is less clear cut.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact
>>>>>>> to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly
>>>>>> possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the
>>>>>> truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My
>>>>>> helmet is very useful for the times my captain ducks without
>>>>>> telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm thinking otherwise
>>>>>> the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt. (And I
>>>>>> happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches are
>>>>>> just part of life.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above the
>>>>> brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
>>>>
>>>> Ahh, additional information is always helpful.
>>
>> Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still,
>> that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike.
>
> He didn't say it saved his life; he said it almost certainly prevented
> serious injury.
>
Any accident that "almost certainly prevented serious injury" almost
certainly has the potential to end one's life.
> As for the unlikely part, I've had right-side rear view mirrors come very
> close to hitting me numerous times. I'd guess that it's a fairly common
> cause of cyclist injury -- from quite minor to severe.
Well, this is the only time I've heard of an actual injury here.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 15:36:41
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:47066e78$0$18980$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47055dc0$0$15345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an
>>>>>>>>>> impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study
>>>>>>>>>> will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my
>>>>>>>>>> helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull.
>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably
>>>>>>>>> did help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the
>>>>>>>>> pavement with your helmet in contact with a rough surface.
>>>>>>>>> That situation is less clear cut.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact
>>>>>>>> to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly
>>>>>>> possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the
>>>>>>> truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My
>>>>>>> helmet is very useful for the times my captain ducks without
>>>>>>> telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm thinking otherwise
>>>>>>> the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt. (And I
>>>>>>> happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches
>>>>>>> are just part of life.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above
>>>>>> the brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahh, additional information is always helpful.
>>>
>>> Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still,
>>> that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike.
>>
>> He didn't say it saved his life; he said it almost certainly
>> prevented serious injury.
>>
>
> Any accident that "almost certainly prevented serious injury" almost
> certainly has the potential to end one's life.
Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your
life." At least be consistent in your baiting.
HTH
>> As for the unlikely part, I've had right-side rear view mirrors come
>> very close to hitting me numerous times. I'd guess that it's a
>> fairly common cause of cyclist injury -- from quite minor to severe.
>
> Well, this is the only time I've heard of an actual injury here.
Read what you wrote: "Still, that's a very unlikely thing to have happen,
even on a bike." It isn't.
HTH
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 16:00:31
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:4706bc7d$0$9629$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
>> news:47066e78$0$18980$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>>> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:47055dc0$0$15345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an
>>>>>>>>>>> impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study
>>>>>>>>>>> will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my
>>>>>>>>>>> helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull.
>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably
>>>>>>>>>> did help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the
>>>>>>>>>> pavement with your helmet in contact with a rough surface.
>>>>>>>>>> That situation is less clear cut.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact
>>>>>>>>> to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly
>>>>>>>> possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the
>>>>>>>> truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My
>>>>>>>> helmet is very useful for the times my captain ducks without
>>>>>>>> telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm thinking otherwise
>>>>>>>> the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt. (And I
>>>>>>>> happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches
>>>>>>>> are just part of life.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above
>>>>>>> the brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ahh, additional information is always helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still,
>>>> that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike.
>>>
>>> He didn't say it saved his life; he said it almost certainly
>>> prevented serious injury.
>>>
>>
>> Any accident that "almost certainly prevented serious injury" almost
>> certainly has the potential to end one's life.
>
> Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your
> life." At least be consistent in your baiting.
Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this shit.
>
> HTH
>
>>> As for the unlikely part, I've had right-side rear view mirrors come
>>> very close to hitting me numerous times. I'd guess that it's a
>>> fairly common cause of cyclist injury -- from quite minor to severe.
>>
>> Well, this is the only time I've heard of an actual injury here.
>
> Read what you wrote: "Still, that's a very unlikely thing to have happen,
> even on a bike." It isn't.
>
> HTH
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 22:10:51
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your
>> life." At least be consistent in your baiting.
>
> Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this shit.
Helmet discussions are FUN!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 14:57:39
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:4706bc7d$0$9629$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
>>> news:47066e78$0$18980$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>>>> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:47055dc0$0$15345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:yj7Ni.645$y21.103@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4704c792$0$4994$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:13g5udpcatvqi60@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an
>>>>>>>>>>>> impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study
>>>>>>>>>>>> will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my
>>>>>>>>>>>> helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull.
>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably
>>>>>>>>>>> did help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the
>>>>>>>>>>> pavement with your helmet in contact with a rough surface.
>>>>>>>>>>> That situation is less clear cut.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror
>>>>>>>>>> impact to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly
>>>>>>>>> possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the
>>>>>>>>> truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a
>>>>>>>>> tandem. My helmet is very useful for the times my captain
>>>>>>>>> ducks without telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm
>>>>>>>>> thinking otherwise the branch would grab my hair, and yeah,
>>>>>>>>> that would hurt. (And I happen to love the captain, so
>>>>>>>>> occasionally uncalled branches are just part of life.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above
>>>>>>>> the brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ahh, additional information is always helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok.
>>>>> Still, that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a
>>>>> bike.
>>>>
>>>> He didn't say it saved his life; he said it almost certainly
>>>> prevented serious injury.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Any accident that "almost certainly prevented serious injury" almost
>>> certainly has the potential to end one's life.
>>
>> Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved
>> your life." At least be consistent in your baiting.
>
> Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this
> shit.
I see. So you enter a helmet thread and throw out little side-remarks like
" it's very likely that the helmet saved your life" and *I'm* trolling.
Brilliant.
People can read the thread, Roger. You're arguing both sides against the
middle. Why is anyone's guess.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>>>> As for the unlikely part, I've had right-side rear view mirrors
>>>> come very close to hitting me numerous times. I'd guess that it's
>>>> a fairly common cause of cyclist injury -- from quite minor to
>>>> severe.
>>>
>>> Well, this is the only time I've heard of an actual injury here.
>>
>> Read what you wrote: "Still, that's a very unlikely thing to have
>> happen, even on a bike." It isn't.
>>
>> HTH
Guess not.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 05:34:34
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
>> believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that
>> the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no
>> effect on my naked skull. :-)
>
> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help. But
> then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet in
> contact with a rough surface.
(Raising my hand) I did! I did!
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 22:03:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>
>> ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
>> believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me
>> that the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have
>> had no effect on my naked skull. :-)
>
> I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
> But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
> helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
> cut.
Hardly.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 23:03:32
From: Dennis P. Harris
Subject: Re: Scientific American does bicycle helmets
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:03:09 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bill
Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> > I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
> > But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
> > helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
> > cut.
>
> Hardly.
>
Yeah, I'd rather keep my hair and avoid the road rash (and impact
damage).
IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.
|
|
