Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

Curt ? wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote in message
...
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
The ones I have seen have a paper thin shell. Only the older helmets
like the Kiwi and Bell Biker from the late 1970's to mid 1980's had real
hard shells. These helmets also weighed two to three times as much as
current production helmets.

As a M/C rider who has bicycle helmets in the house I could never
understand
why they stopped producing the hard shell bike helmets.

The Kiwi and Bell Biker helmets were a lot lighter than a M/C helmet,
so it couldn't have been a weight thing because M/C riders wear helmets
all day long without trouble. Unless your average bicyclist is a wimp
compared to your average motorcyclist? Could that be it?

Without the hard outer shell the foam isn't going to do squat in an
accident.

Well, the energy involved is a lot lower in a bicycle wreck, I'd think.

The foam absorbs energy just fine -- just like the foam in a MC helmet does.

Unless the bicycle foam hat cracks in a brittle manner, which is a
distinct possibility. An impact that would cause a fracture of the hard
shell of a motorcycle helmet would certainly kill the wearer, so it is
not of concern in that case.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Morrgaine" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Aug 19, 1:47?pm, "Keith Schiffner" wrote:
"Morrgaine" wrote in message
"Morrgaine" wrote in message
Mad men and poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the
world.

Poet moi?

Then what is left to consider?

...hmm. Good question. What might be a single track conveyance? Granted I
cheat
a bit and allow for three wheels/legs and monopods are welcome.

Whoooooosh!

OR I'm a literal philosopher that has considered hemlock and instead skipped
town.

Philosopers are engineers who do not get caught in the gears of creation.

--
Keith Schiffner
Reality is motorcycles all else is fantasy.
If you don't want to give her a hard ride you aren't a real man. Straight or gay
she gets your to grinning and acting like a fool kid.

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
fred wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Paul Berg wrote:
...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?

And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the
injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the helmet
thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs and no
head injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be irrelevant.
By not mentioning the type of injuries, they imply that they were
head injuries and that helmets might have made a difference.

Nope. They're just letting the public know that they are a couple
of morons.
I see that "Lobby Dosser" has uncritically accepted the bicycle
helmet propaganda designed primarily to drive the sales of foam
bicycle hats.


A good friend had his life saved by one of the foam hats. As long as
you pay your own medical care for head injuries, I don't really care
what You do.

Did your good friend's identical twin have an identical accident,
except for not wearing a foam hat and die as the result? If not, how
can you state that your friend would have died without his foam hat?


His scalp was split from forehead to neck, he was unconscious for two
weeks and the neurosurgeon said he would have been dead or a veggie
without the helmet.

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
fred wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Paul Berg wrote:
...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?

And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the
injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the
helmet thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs
and no head injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be
irrelevant. By not mentioning the type of injuries, they imply
that they were head injuries and that helmets might have made a
difference.

Nope. They're just letting the public know that they are a couple
of morons.
I see that "Lobby Dosser" has uncritically accepted the bicycle
helmet propaganda designed primarily to drive the sales of foam
bicycle hats.

A good friend had his life saved by one of the foam hats. As long
as you pay your own medical care for head injuries, I don't really
care what You do.
Did your good friend's identical twin have an identical accident,
except for not wearing a foam hat and die as the result? If not, how
can you state that your friend would have died without his foam hat?

Perhaps using the same logic that you're using in assuming his friend
wouldn't have died without his foam hat?

I made no such assumption in this particular case. However it is
utterly ridiculous (but all too common) to cite such cases as PROOF
when there is no CONTROL CASE.


Dead or brain damaged cyclists who were Not wearing helmets are the
control cases.

In article Z93yi.789$nB3.728@trndny02, Lobby Dosser wrote:

His scalp was split from forehead to neck, he was unconscious for two
weeks and the neurosurgeon said he would have been dead or a veggie
without the helmet.

Because the neurosurgeon took all those engineering and physics classes
to understand the mechanics of impact....... *snort*

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
fred wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Paul Berg wrote:
...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?

And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the
injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the
helmet thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs
and no head injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be
irrelevant. By not mentioning the type of injuries, they imply
that they were head injuries and that helmets might have made a
difference.

Nope. They're just letting the public know that they are a couple
of morons.
I see that "Lobby Dosser" has uncritically accepted the bicycle
helmet propaganda designed primarily to drive the sales of foam
bicycle hats.

A good friend had his life saved by one of the foam hats. As long as
you pay your own medical care for head injuries, I don't really care
what You do.

Here we go...

Yep, anecdotal "evidence" with no control.


And you have ...?

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Bill Shatzer wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

Paul Berg wrote:

...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?

They seem effective in reducing serious head injuries by up to 85%.

http://tinyurl.com/yqk6xl
Thompson, Rivara, Thompson has been discredited for a long time,
unless one believes that bicycle h*lm*ts reduce 85% of NON-HEAD
injuries also.


Shoot, if one believes that helmets cause drivers to drive closer to
cyclists, one can believe that helmets are responsible for damn near
anything including fluctuations in the stock market and global
warming.

The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist helmet
use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists give less
clearance to helmeted cyclists.


Did it? The whole study was a Crock. Even if it DID show what you and the
researcher claim, the drivers were passing less than 10% closer. BFD.

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Bill Shatzer wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

Paul Berg wrote:

The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.

Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?

They seem effective in reducing serious head injuries by up to 85%.

http://tinyurl.com/yqk6xl

Thompson, Rivara, Thompson has been discredited for a long time,

You've certainly not done so.

No, but statistician Dr. Dorothy L. Robinson did.

unless one believes that bicycle h*lm*ts reduce 85% of NON-HEAD
injuries also.

Heh!

"Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case
patients were 235 persons with HEAD INJURIES received while
bicycling, who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals."
(emphasis added)

They were studying -only- head injuries and I can't find that their
study considered other types of injuries at all.

Sheesh!

Read Dr. Dorothy L. Robinson's critique:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki...d_Thompson_(19
89). Sheesh!


Nothing there.

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Bo Raxo wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by
those who have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
And getting rid of mandatory helmet laws will promote more organ
donation. Toss in the Darwinian aspect and you've got: Win-win!
Please post some citations showing that a thin web of expanded
polystyrene will significantly reduce serious brain trauma in
accidents.


http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...ke_helmet.html
"Anneliese Spinks, a research fellow in the Griffith University
School of Medicine in Queensland, Australia, said most studies have
found that helmet laws reduce injuries, but that not all studies have
been considered statistically reliable."

Most helmet studies have been designed to find this result, regardless
of reality.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/886041.html
"According to Beterem and the road safety organization Or Yarok,
hospitalization due to cycling accidents in New York, New Jersey,
Canada, Seatle and California were down by dozens of percentage
points - especially among children - after helmet laws were passed. "

As was overall cycling activity, no doubt.

http://www.helmets.org/rodgers1.htm
"While recent studies show substantial safety benefits from helmet
use, they also reveal that only a small proportion of riders actually
use helmets. "

I could come up with a dozen more, but you get the idea.

Time and time again, these studies have been shown to have a flawed
experimental design. Why have we not seen any positive effect in
places like Australia with the introduction of MHLs?

Or to you believe that foam bicycle hats have magical powers that
protect the wearer's head?


I believe that nothing will protect you from all head injuries, but a
hard shell that absorbs some impact will reduce head injuries. It's
rather obvious.

Butbutbut, bicycle foam hats sold in the last couple of decades do NOT
have hard shells.

Try this: put a motorcycle helmet on a table and strike it hard with
your hand. Now try it again with a contemporary bicycle foam hat.

Mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists on the road,
which increases the danger to the remaining cyclist from motorists,
which has been shown by reputable studies in jurisdictions that have
adopted MHLs.


Reducing the number of cyclists on the road increases the danger to
the remaining ones?

Oh please, post the study that shows that.

Why has mandatory helmet use in Australia not been of benefit?


It kept you off their roads?

(Brent P) wrote:

In article YrMxi.701$A57.468@trnddc04, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists

Say What?!!

Some motorists want MHLs because they feel if they hit a bicyclist it
won't hurt them as much. If they feel the bicyclist is better
protected they will compensate for it for it by passing closer. Far
too many drivers are too lazy to move over and an MHL helps the
thinking that excuses that laziness.

Bull****!