Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:56:11 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:

wrote:


Wow, _that's_ charitable! And a major non-sequitur!

Did I say your brain-injured acquaintances are a waste of time? No,
not even close.



But let me ask: Of the brain injured and dead people you've known, how
many were injured by cycling, and how many by other activities? I'm
curious whether your group fits the national profile.

All of them (save one) suffered their brain injuries in cycling
accidents (and he suffered his in a mugging, coming to the aid of his
brother). There were other serious accidents deaths from cycling, other
than brain injury. I don't know that ANY of them would have been
prevented by better helmets--not the point anymore.

That is the point. Deaths in cycling are rare. And when someone gets
slammed big-time be a car they will understandably have many other
injuries too. Helmets can help in a small fraction of those rare
incidents. They can probably help with some minor injuries too.

So you're so strongly in favor of something that helps a small slice
of very race events -- accidents wear the blow to the head is not too
severe as to overwhelm these thin foam things on our heads but not so
severe as to crack someones next or push in their face or cause other
serios problems. Fine. But to think helmets are very important or
nearly essential to safe cycling is just fooling yourself.

JT

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

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:56:11 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:


wrote:


Wow, _that's_ charitable! And a major non-sequitur!

Did I say your brain-injured acquaintances are a waste of time? No,
not even close.


But let me ask: Of the brain injured and dead people you've known, how
many were injured by cycling, and how many by other activities? I'm
curious whether your group fits the national profile.

All of them (save one) suffered their brain injuries in cycling
accidents (and he suffered his in a mugging, coming to the aid of his
brother). There were other serious accidents deaths from cycling, other
than brain injury. I don't know that ANY of them would have been
prevented by better helmets--not the point anymore.


That is the point. Deaths in cycling are rare. And when someone gets
slammed big-time be a car they will understandably have many other
injuries too. Helmets can help in a small fraction of those rare
incidents. They can probably help with some minor injuries too.

So you're so strongly in favor of something that helps a small slice
of very race events -- accidents wear the blow to the head is not too
severe as to overwhelm these thin foam things on our heads but not so
severe as to crack someones next or push in their face or cause other
serios problems. Fine. But to think helmets are very important or
nearly essential to safe cycling is just fooling yourself.

Now YOU'RE missing my point JT. I'll outline it again for you, and
then I've said all I'm going to.
Frank said a safer cycling helmet could be made, but it would have to
look like a motorcycle helmet. I merely said that there's no way he
could know that was the only way, given his apparent disinterest in
acknowledging there is even a problem with cycling head injuries. He
went on to say (as he has so often) that cycling is safe, implying
broadly that special safety measures and devices were unnecessary--he
would not in fact interest himself in safety devices--mainly because
their promotion would discourage cycling. I told him that, having known
much more than a few people seriously injured in cycling accidents
(including myself), that avoiding the issue of cycling safety so as not
to give the appearance that cycling is dangerous was more than a little
callous. In fact, many of these head injuries occured while wearing a
helmet (including my own). It is very much an open issue to me whether
the helmet helped me at all in this case; Frank's answer is that he's a
mechanical engineer (for crying out loud!) and how dare I call him on
his disinterest in this issue. So for ME it's about more than helmets.
For Frank, who knows--maybe the freedom to feel the wind in his hair,
maybe the freedom to say these very, very, very few dead and maimed
cyclists are insufficient cause to advocate safety--whether through
better traffic management, law enforcement, or improved safety devices.

Steve

JT

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


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:12:23 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:

Now YOU'RE missing my point JT. I'll outline it again for you, and
then I've said all I'm going to.

You're missing the most meta-point of all -- you're deeply,
emotionally invested in the importance of helmets and unfortunately
the reality you experience does not support that attachment. So you
dance around. Among other things, Franks assertions should be forcing
you to strip away the biases that cloud your thinking, but you can't
seem to deal with that.

JT


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

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:


You're missing the most meta-point of all -- you're deeply,
emotionally invested in the importance of helmets and unfortunately
the reality you experience does not support that attachment. So you
dance around. Among other things, Franks assertions should be forcing
you to strip away the biases that cloud your thinking, but you can't
seem to deal with that.

JT

Wow, John--years of therapy and no one's ever come to the root of my
problem as you just have!
I don't think you understand me at all. I agree that the newer helmets
are likely of little significance in major trauma. The reality I have
experienced is that protection against both head and other trauma while
cycling is in fact a real issue. Meanwhile, Frank says it is not an
issue, which is fine with me. Just don't lecture me about my "biases",
and don't tell me that the dead and maimed shouldn't be important enough
for me to be concerned about.

Steve


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


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

In article bTGNe.221$Ck2.4@trndny04,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:56:11 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:


wrote:


Wow, _that's_ charitable! And a major non-sequitur!

Did I say your brain-injured acquaintances are a waste of time? No,
not even close.


But let me ask: Of the brain injured and dead people you've known, how
many were injured by cycling, and how many by other activities? I'm
curious whether your group fits the national profile.

All of them (save one) suffered their brain injuries in cycling
accidents (and he suffered his in a mugging, coming to the aid of his
brother). There were other serious accidents deaths from cycling, other
than brain injury. I don't know that ANY of them would have been
prevented by better helmets--not the point anymore.


That is the point. Deaths in cycling are rare. And when someone gets
slammed big-time be a car they will understandably have many other
injuries too. Helmets can help in a small fraction of those rare
incidents. They can probably help with some minor injuries too.

So you're so strongly in favor of something that helps a small slice
of very race events -- accidents wear the blow to the head is not too
severe as to overwhelm these thin foam things on our heads but not so
severe as to crack someones next or push in their face or cause other
serios problems. Fine. But to think helmets are very important or
nearly essential to safe cycling is just fooling yourself.

Now YOU'RE missing my point JT. I'll outline it again for you, and
then I've said all I'm going to.
Frank said a safer cycling helmet could be made, but it would have to
look like a motorcycle helmet. I merely said that there's no way he
could know that was the only way, given his apparent disinterest in
acknowledging there is even a problem with cycling head injuries. He
went on to say (as he has so often) that cycling is safe, implying
broadly that special safety measures and devices were unnecessary--he
would not in fact interest himself in safety devices--mainly because
their promotion would discourage cycling. I told him that, having known
much more than a few people seriously injured in cycling accidents
(including myself), that avoiding the issue of cycling safety so as not
to give the appearance that cycling is dangerous was more than a little
callous. In fact, many of these head injuries occured while wearing a
helmet (including my own). It is very much an open issue to me whether
the helmet helped me at all in this case; Frank's answer is that he's a
mechanical engineer (for crying out loud!) and how dare I call him on
his disinterest in this issue. So for ME it's about more than helmets.
For Frank, who knows--maybe the freedom to feel the wind in his hair,
maybe the freedom to say these very, very, very few dead and maimed
cyclists are insufficient cause to advocate safety--whether through
better traffic management, law enforcement, or improved safety devices.


The cost/benefit ratio for helmet promotion is very much
greater than the cost/benefit ratio for informational
programs aimed at cyclists and motorists. Who has denied
that drawing attention to dangerous behaviors of cyclists
and motorists is important? You falsely accuse Frank.

Much good can be accomplished telling cyclists which of
their behaviors are dangerous, such as riding the wrong
side of the road. Much good could be accomplished by the
Department of Motor Vehicles if they started adding test
questions based on sections of the vehicle code that apply
to cyclists.

--
Michael Press

RonSonic wrote:

Ahh, but he _could._

Ron

As you well know, I've provided considerable detail, and citiations,
regarding lighting systems. Many people appreciate the detailed
responses, as well as the content on the web site
(http://bicyclelighting.com). There are a few people for whom such
detail has not served even to broaden their perspective, much less
change their mind.

If someone is actually interested in learning something, rather than
just being a jerk, I am happy to provide citations. To some people, it's
all about defending their faith, rather than looking objectively at the
facts, so responding in detail is a waste of time. They know full well
where to look for the details that they claim to need.

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:

Frank said a safer cycling helmet could be made, but it would have to
look like a motorcycle helmet. I merely said that there's no way he
could know that was the only way, given his apparent disinterest in
acknowledging there is even a problem with cycling head injuries.

Which is, of course, absolutely false.

First: I listed at least four ways in which bike helmets could be made
more protective. Not all of them required the helmet looking like a
motorcycle helmet. Yes, it's true that current full-face motorcycle
helmets would have those features; but that does NOT mean every helmet
with those features would look like a motorcycle helmet. If that
difference isn't apparent to you, I suggest some training in logic.

Second: There are _many_ ways I know about helmet design, and what it
would take to make helmets more protective. First, I've got degrees in
Mechanical Engineering. I'm a licensed Professional Engineer (just as,
I assume, you are a licensed dentist). I've studied the issue of bike
helmets intensely for well over ten years. In fact, I first started
learning about helmet design at a conference in 1970, where I attended
a presentation on that topic. At one point, I even did comparative
tests on a wide variety of foams used for impact protection.

I'll admit I don't know much about teeth. But there's no way I'd say
_you_ (a licensed dentist) don't know about teeth. Similarly, it's
ludicrous for you to say I don't know about helmets. You don't have
the knowledge or background to judge.


He
went on to say (as he has so often) that cycling is safe, implying
broadly that special safety measures and devices were unnecessary--he
would not in fact interest himself in safety devices--mainly because
their promotion would discourage cycling.

And this is true. In fact, I would not be interested in developing
safer bike helmets for the same reason I would not be interested in
developing safer pedestrian helmets. For both ordinary cycling and
ordinary walking, the level of danger is low enough that special
headgear is unnecessary. And we don't need people pretending
otherwise.

I told him that, having known
much more than a few people seriously injured in cycling accidents
(including myself), that avoiding the issue of cycling safety so as not
to give the appearance that cycling is dangerous was more than a little
callous.

Yes, and I've known people that have been badly injured by walking.
Worse, I've lost count of the friends I've lost to driving fatalities.
Fact is, for every activity this side of knitting, you can list
examples of tragic injuries.

But your accusation that I avoid the issue of cycling safety simply
shows that' you're speaking in ignorance. Read the safety articles at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/index.html
That's a website I helped found. I also wrote many of the articles
posted there. And, BTW, I've been Safety Chairman of my fairly large
bike club for many years. I've put on many presentations related to
bike safety and taught many classes on bike safety, as well as other
aspects of cycling. I'm a certified League Cycling Instructor. Have
you done as much?


But I'm very interested in your attitude that if someone is skeptical
of helmets, they must not care about safety. IOW, your mind confuses
"Safety" and "Helmet," as if helmets are all there is to bike safety.
It's a common mistake since helmet promotion hit high gear - but it's
(sorry) quite stupid.


For Frank, who knows--maybe the freedom to feel the wind in his hair,
maybe the freedom to say these very, very, very few dead and maimed
cyclists are insufficient cause to advocate safety--whether through
better traffic management, law enforcement, or improved safety devices.

You've proven you know nothing about my background, the causes I
advocate, my knowledge or my skills. When a person knows as little as
you do about a subject, they really should stop talking. It's the only
way to prevent looking foolish.

- Frank Krygowski

I submit that on or about Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:24:12 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

As you well know, I've provided considerable detail, and citiations,
regarding lighting systems.

Albeit they fall short of actually supporting your dogmatic assertion
that dynamo lighting is less "inadequate". Comparative per-mile
casualty data would do. Indeed, that would seem to be the very
minimum required for such a strongly-stated position. "Don't trust
the generator lighting systems on these bikes!" - to set your own view
above that of the manufacturers and owners of these bikes definitely
needs some real, externally verifiable evidence.

Many people appreciate the detailed
responses, as well as the content on the web site
(http://bicyclelighting.com). There are a few people for whom such
detail has not served even to broaden their perspective, much less
change their mind.

Incredible, isn't it? People should be grateful for your taking time
out of your busy schedule to tell them their experience counts for
nothing, their judgment is worthless and their assessment of the
benefits of different types of system is necessarily wrong! They
should realise: you are one of Earth's greatest authorities on bicycle
lighting! We know it's true because it's on a website somewhere...

In reality, of course, you are once again accusing others of your own
worst fault. The clue here is that those with whom you argue support
*both* choices - dynamo or rechargeable - whereas you dismiss one out
of hand, and killfile those who ask you for evidence to back that up.

The crap about "broadening their perspective" is particularly ironic,
since what you are doing is actually to /narrow/ perspective by
dismissing dynamo lighting out of hand!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I submit that on or about Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:44:28 GMT, the person
known to the court as RonSonic made a
statement in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Ahh, but he _could._

As we see, Steven restricts himself to alluding to other times when he
says he has cited relevant evidence. How dare we disagree with on of
Earth's greatest experts? If he says something it is up to us to go
and find the citations to back him up!

If you keep pressing him for evidence you're asking to be killfiled,
my friend!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

wrote:

Fact is, for every activity this side of knitting, you can list
examples of tragic injuries.

Just because you're a mechanical engineer, you think you know
everything and can pronounce on subjects which you have no experience
in. How much have you knitted over the years? Have you ever belonged to
a knitting club, where you could meet a statistically significant
sample that you might learn from? Many of my friends have had tragic
injuries while knitting and your callousness towards their suffering is
beyond the pale. Just because you haven't seen them on Jerry Springer,
you think they don't exist.

Oh, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll have you know
that because I'm more concerned about safety than you, I decided to
take my life seriously and knit myself a helmet. Wouldn't you know but
I knocked a tooth out with a #16 steel needle, that's right, the one
they call Big Bertha. If only I had been wearing a helmet.


r