Sad helmet incident

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:13:19 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

What I really want is armour to protect my little fingers, especially
at the first joint.

I'm not sure these will work for you, but some of the prices are
sufficient low that they might be worth trying:

Chainmail Gloves Medieval Light Weight Aluminum Chain Armor Replica
Ring Gauntlets
http://www.swordsaxe.com/chainmail-gloves-medieval-light-weight-aluminum-chain-armor-replica-ring-gauntlets.aspx
http://www.swordsaxe.com/images/products/detail/Chainmail_Gloves_Medieval_Light_Weight_Aluminum_Ch ain_Armor_Replica_Ring_Gauntlets_3.jpg

Metal motorcycle gloves:
https://www.mcgearhub.com/motorcycle-gloves/excalibur-chrome-gloves-review-icon-timax-lookalikes/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MUD94D8/

Exoskeleton gloves:
https://www.google.com/search?q=exoskeleton+gloves&tbm=isch

Power assisted Festo ExoHand:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=exohand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcTL7Hig8h4

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:09:28 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:51:25 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:

with Jeff Liebermann wrote:
So, what is an RBT reading geek to do? If helmets are not going to
disappear, and many people seem to want helmets, then at least make
them better, more functional, more usable, cheaper, and in this case,
less dangerous to small children. Minor tweaks to the design of a
chin strap are not going to affect global use and sales of helmets,
but it might save the lives of a few kids.

No way. Changes as such would draw on profits.

I suspect you don't understand how most product cycles operate. I don't
have time to go through the details right now, but at some point, a
mature product (same as an over-sold product), ossifies into a standard
configuration, where all the competing products appear to be 99%
identical. You may have noticed this in Linux distros, which are 99%
identical, except for the installer, desktop decorations, and bundled
applications.

Actually there is only two main sources of Linux distros; Redhat &
Debian. Rhe rest are rebadging of their work with greater (Canonical/
Ubuntu) and lessor, e.g devuan, which accounts for your comments. There
are very few truely independent distos, such as Slackware.

As to product lifestlye comments; spot on.

On 1/20/2020 8:09 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

snip

I suspect you don't understand how most product cycles operate. I
don't have time to go through the details right now, but at some
point, a mature product (same as an over-sold product), ossifies into
a standard configuration, where all the competing products appear to
be 99% identical.

While all helmets may meet the minimum CPSC or European standards, they
are not identical in level of protection. Look at the tests performed by
Virginia Tech at
https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html where they
rate a bunch of helmets from best to worst.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:46:38 +0700, John B. wrote:


Helmets don't protect nor can they protect from everything. Sheesh, when
I was in the army I saw bullets go clean through M1 style steel military
helmets. Does that mean no soldier should wear a helmet? LOL VBEG

Cheers

But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side
of a helmet at 500 yards.

Yep, it is marketing FUD to makethe troops happy by feeling "safe".

On 1/20/2020 8:58 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:36:40 -0500, Duane
wrote:
I'm with Jay and Andre. I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

Well, if you don't care about impact protection, the design of a
bicycle helmet to protect against abrasion (road rash) is much
simpler.

And in response to "My helmet saved my life" claims made here, Guy
Chapman said several times that his wooly cap had saved his life. In
actuality, it probably was all that was needed to resist abrasion. And I
believe that for almost all cyclists, scalp abrasions are extremely
rare, even if they never wear a helmet.

I think most people who claim they wear helmets only for abrasion
protection are not being perfectly accurate. I think there are other
reasons they wear them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 02:42:49 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:46:38 +0700, John B. wrote:


Helmets don't protect nor can they protect from everything. Sheesh, when
I was in the army I saw bullets go clean through M1 style steel military
helmets. Does that mean no soldier should wear a helmet? LOL VBEG

Cheers

But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side
of a helmet at 500 yards.

Yep, it is marketing FUD to makethe troops happy by feeling "safe".

I believe that current studies show that the majority of combat
wounds, are caused by explosive devices, not gunshots.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:39:36 -0800, sms wrote:

On 1/20/2020 8:09 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

snip

I suspect you don't understand how most product cycles operate. I
don't have time to go through the details right now, but at some point,
a mature product (same as an over-sold product), ossifies into a
standard configuration, where all the competing products appear to be
99% identical.

While all helmets may meet the minimum CPSC or European standards, they
are not identical in level of protection. Look at the tests performed by
Virginia Tech at
https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html where they
rate a bunch of helmets from best to worst.

Naah, the cheapest helmet achieved the highest score.
Anything MIPs is obviously crap and who the hell wants to wear a "decoy
helmemt? Is that for duck hunting.

I notice they didn't test the no helmet option. Just posted FUD. Stats
101 teaches you that any graph/table/ratig without a origin is just BS.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:43:16 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2020 2:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 9:42:50 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2020 12:18 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 6:55:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

There's no giant conspiracy [to pass a MHL in Oregon] because you already have a helmet law in
Oregon. You're just not part of the group subject to it. But there's
constant social pressure to maintain the meme that "Of _course_ you must
wear a helmet!" And if you ride into Washington State, you may find
yourself in violation of a MHL.

Yes, its true, I'm over the age of 16.

So every parent is now expected to tell their kids "Riding a bike is
really dangerous. You are NOT allowed to ever ride without wearing a
helmet!"

Luckily, I sired a non-stupid child. My son understood that there were rules to follow and did not get hysterical about wearing a helmet or the risks of cycling. There were times when he did not wear a helmet -- like our usual store run when I don't wear a helmet either. He also went through a phase when he didn't wear a helmet sometimes because of high school hair issues.

Ah, the good old days: https://attheu.utah.edu/home-page/be...alt-lake-city/ At Specialized, I think he can get a helmet for like $1. He's seen his friends injured and has had spills of his own racing and riding, so he generally wears a helmet when he rides.


If my local experience is any indication, that means a bunch of parents
will say "Look, why don't you do something else instead?" And a bunch of
kids will say "Screw it, if I have to wear that dorky hat, I'm not riding."

And this is portrayed as benign?

Hasn't cut down or ridership in Portland. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/407660 To you, it is an end-of-world issue. To the cycling population in PDX -- its meaningless. Kids are used to wearing helmets, and people over 16 do what they want.

Sorry, but "it hasn't cut down on ridership in Portland" is pure
speculation. I recognize that Portland has much more bicycling than
almost all U.S. cities. But that in itself is not proof that helmet laws
or promotions don't deter riding.

Logically, we know there are at least some kids who will choose not to
ride if forced to wear a helmet. Both our kids had that opinion at one
time or another, and I knew other kids with the same attitude. For the
policy to have no net effect, there would have to be other kids who say
"I never liked riding a bike, but now that I'm forced to wear a helmet,
I"m going to begin riding." I don't know any person who ever said that.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you're braver than I am. I can tell that by
your tales of crashes.

Yes, like falling into a submerged pot hole and going OTB. I should have had Garmin sonar on my bike -- or going down on a patch of invisible black ice in front of my office. I've crashed riding at walking speed over a board-slat MUP bridge that was slimy (which now has indoor-outdoor carpet on it). This was ordinary riding/commuting and not crazy risk taking.

Jay, do you think I've never ridden below freezing? Do you think I never
rode on bridges or causeways with slippery wood surfaces? Do you think
we don't have potholes?

Let's put it this way, for the last 36 years, I've ridden half the year on wet pavement or some other form of H2O, and I ride on average five or six days a week. I seriously doubt you have spent a fraction of the time I have in low traction conditions. How many times do you ride down a road covered in a sheet of water? Tell me, how would you have avoided an unseen submerged pot hole? The magical Frank third-eye-o-vision? I was position one for godssake!

Look at your topography. Flat. The highest point in the state is like 1,500 feet with an elevation change from Youngstown of like 380 feet. I do 100 feet more than that just coming home from work on my second-flattest route -- more than three times that if I go home through the hills. Do you see any descending riding around your village? This standard route into work (today) is like a ski run on broken pavement. https://tinyurl.com/r53f5pu

And when was the last time you had to dodge some idiot on an eScooter or a ride in a congested city with trains, buses, streetcars, pedestrians, etc., etc.? Not that it is danger-danger (!) here in PDX, but its not your village. With that said, I know for a fact you don't experience the same danger from other cyclists as I do, which is reason enough to wear a helmet -- and maybe body armor.

Fun fact: About three years ago the mayor of our village was lobbying
for a new village levy, to be devoted entirely to road paving, because
so many village streets were in terrible shape. Guess which street he
chose to pose on, for the newspaper photo?

He chose my street, which he apparently considered the most dramatic
photo of potholes and patches. And it worked! The levy passed.

Now guess which was the first street to get paved.

OK, that's not fair, so I'll tell you. It was the street the mayor lives
on. My street was not the second. Nor the third, fourth, fifth or sixth.
I don't know where the count is now, but our street still looks exactly
the same. And until about three weeks ago, it included a pothole about
one foot by 18 inches, and maybe five inches deep. I had to avoid it
every time I turned into our street, either by car or by bike, whether
wet or dry.

In any case, I deal with these things, and somehow I don't fall. Perhaps
I'm more afraid of falling than you are.

I suspect you have far less exposure to exactly the conditions that caused my head strikes.

You mentioned equipment failure possibly causing a fall. Well, I've broken probably seven cranks, two pedals, seat post, handle bars (that's an eye opener), multiple frames and never crashed. All my broken cranks were riding out of the saddle and two failed while sprinting up a hill next to traffic. I'm not sure, though, whether I will be so lucky the next time I snap a crank. Nothing is a given as one gets older.


It hasn't caused me any emotional distress, unlike some.

Apparently it doesn't cause you intellectual distress either.

Nope. My helmets have paid off. It's the intellectually right move for me. Maybe not for you.

Apparently it's not the right move for me, since I've never needed one
in over 45 years of avid adult riding.

My intellectual distress is with the propaganda that always accompanies
helmet promotion. It's always either implied or stated that you NEED one
of these things, because riding a bike is a big injury risk. I remain
astonished that so many people, including so many avid cyclists, are so
taken in by the propaganda, and so ignorant of the relevant data.

Propaganda? What propaganda? Nobody I know wears a helmet because of propaganda. Most are racers or former racers and just accustomed to wearing a helmet and most also ride or race mountain bikes or CX and fall with some regularity, albeit usually minor falls.


But there are plenty of cyclists who could get prosecuted for
perfectly reasonable behavior.

Prosecuted? You men a ticket (that doesn't go against your license and can't be used for rating your insurnce)?

Are you implying that's no trouble at all, and people shouldn't fuss
about it?

No more than they should fuss about the ten-bazillion other things for which you can get a ticket from a municipality. We were talking about the local Washington MHLs -- which are ordinances and not state laws.

Whatever. It does bother me that an activity that is beneficial to the
individual and beneficial to society is ladened with senseless laws,
ordinances, or whatever you call the regulations.

If there were ordinances saying you can't have your porch light on
during daylight, or your car must be red, or you're not allowed to put a
sign in your yard, I'd think those were stupid too. But bicycling is
rather more important to me; hence I give more attention to stupid
bicycle regulations. (We can talk about AFRAP laws again if you like.)

We don't have those ordinances here in PDX, but we do have the state MHL for kids under 16, which doesn't seem to be keeping kids off bikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4FO_9rKLO4 How are you doing there in helmet free Ohio?

You've got great promotion of bicycling. I think it's partly because of
a court case that mandated spending a certain percentage of
transportation funds on non-motorized transportation, no? ;-)

OTOH, there are other places that have bike mode shares that dwarf
Portland's. And they don't promote helmets at all, let alone mandate
them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVhYcJH_m5o See what Portland
could be if not for helmets?

OK, more seriously: There are many things that affect ridership.
Fashion, local culture, city density, traffic levels, trip distances,
climate, terrain, economy, privileges or penalties for motorists, etc.
But there's no way that helmet promotion or mandates are a positive
influence.

This is one of my nearby climbs with a typical Portland driver. You would wear a helmet, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fzwm4m3ZFI

Note at about 1:00 into the video, the driver is wearing a helmet. By
some of the bike helmet promotion logic, every motorist should strap on
a full face helmet before pulling out of the driveway.

"Racers wear a helmet, so you should too!"

Uh, no -- most drivers are not drifting up Rock Point which, in some places, just falls off a cliff.

But that _has_ been said about bicyclists! I've rebutted it in this
discussion group with references to NASCAR.

BTW, that descent on a bike is very helmet worthy, particularly on wet pavement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NPqQptjbF0

And I'm sure I would descend much more slowly and cautiously than you.

On an off camber turn with oil or ice, you can crash going two miles and hour. The good part is you just slide down the bank. I take this corner at walking speed in the rain: https://tinyurl.com/t4uccwn

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:06:14 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 02:42:49 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:46:38 +0700, John B. wrote:


Helmets don't protect nor can they protect from everything. Sheesh,
when I was in the army I saw bullets go clean through M1 style steel
military helmets. Does that mean no soldier should wear a helmet? LOL
VBEG

Cheers

But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one
side of a helmet at 500 yards.

Yep, it is marketing FUD to makethe troops happy by feeling "safe".

I believe that current studies show that the majority of combat wounds,
are caused by explosive devices, not gunshots.

Yep, skill in IED development seems more handy that ordering ammo and
waiting for it to arrive. Over here, all that childhood chemistry
experimtation(sp?) would see you locked up.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 22:03:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/20/2020 8:58 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:36:40 -0500, Duane
wrote:
I'm with Jay and Andre. I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

Well, if you don't care about impact protection, the design of a
bicycle helmet to protect against abrasion (road rash) is much simpler.

And in response to "My helmet saved my life" claims made here, Guy
Chapman said several times that his wooly cap had saved his life. In
actuality, it probably was all that was needed to resist abrasion. And I
believe that for almost all cyclists, scalp abrasions are extremely
rare, even if they never wear a helmet.

I think most people who claim they wear helmets only for abrasion
protection are not being perfectly accurate. I think there are other
reasons they wear them.

Over here, you put eyes on wobbly springs and mount those on your bicycle
helmet and the magpies go WTF?
Also raises smiles all round.