I crash into religion

Roger wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:



So not answering at all -- cowardly that is.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just for the record: I *did not* write that.


I can show you the dents in my helmet. I am glad they are not in my head.

Had I not been wearing a helmet, I could not show the dents, but I
probably could not post to this ng either.

Don't expect anybosy to tell you that they should have been wearing a
helmet. Not having one when you need it is likely to be a once in a
lifetime experience you never get the chance to tell others about.

wrote:
Sorni wrote:


Frank, how can I put this clearly. I have absolutely no problem
with the /substance/ of what you say, regardless of whether I agree
with it. It's the /style/ of being the the almighty know-it-all who
lectures the poor, unenlightened masses on what is "of value" that I
find objectionable.

From here, it looks like you're blinded by your prejudices. It makes
you unable to see the mirror.

I don't talk down to or insult people FIRST. The only rare exceptions to
that might be spammers or trollers. (Some will say I flame top-posters, but
even then it's only if there's already antagonism established. Hard to
prove, but true.)

Who was it, posting from the helmet promoting camp, who called posters
"stupid" and "asses" and other insulting terms?

Yes, we know who it was. We just don't know why you forget you've
done it.

Frank, I don't think I've EVER attacked someone personally or name-called
without being insulted first. The way people snip things nowadays it might
appear so, but it isn't. (I am guilty of using sarcasm sometimes -- say, in
political wars -- so I'm sure some who get personally abusive with me THINK
they're just retaliating. And of course, since I'm conservative it's OK,
anyway.)

Regarding my posting style: I'll admit to being purposefully uncivil
to a certain French lawyer, one who always leads with a mocking,
insulting tone and no factual knowledge. But nothing I've said to you
has been nearly as rude as what you've shouted at others.

What stands out in my mind is that I've obviously studied this issue
far more than you have. I've presented far more figures, citations,
links and facts in this conversation than you have. Come to think of
it, so has Carl Fogel, and so have several other helmet skeptics. And
this obviously bothers you.

That's just silly. What bothers me is your thinking no one else's views
matter. Not everyone analyzes everything to death before making what /to
them/ seems like a straightforward, common-sense decision. (CHOICE.)
Having felt seatbelts restain me in near-accidents, I've decided to use them
always. I don't CARE what any "data" or "studies" show; I know they work
for what *I* want them to do. Same thing with helmets. I've cracked my
noggin off rocks a few times, and the helmet did its job. That's good
enough for me, no matter how much it chagrins you. (That's just a bonus!)

Not only have your posts been almost completely free of such facts,
you've often taken offense at the idea that someone might actually
benefit from study.

Hardly. Just not on some particular issues. (What color shirt to wear.
What kind of car to buy. Whether to wear cycling gloves -- not just for
comfort, but for some small protection from road rash if I fall. Whether to
wear a lid.) The FLAW in your insult is that many "intellectual types" I
know -- including one in particular who researches and footnotes practically
everything -- also choose (CHOOSE) to wear hemlets. Seems like a smart idea
to THEM, too.

I admit that /am/ tired of being bullied and abused, however -- again, not
by your substance but rather your style -- so I really do intend to bow out
of these silly lid wars soon. So if I don't answer your next haughty bit of
condescending blather (or the one after that), be sure to chalk it up as a
victory of your massive intellect and not just the fatigue and boredom that
finally carried the day.

To my mind, that is glorifying ignorance. I'm not "politically
correct" enough to refrain from saying so.

You tout your self and your way as "valuable" and dismiss and disrespect
those who don't see things the way you do. I'm not afraid of bullies enough
to refrain from saying so.

Bye!

Roger wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:



So not answering at all -- cowardly that is.


I can show you the dents in my helmet. I am glad they are not in my
head.
Had I not been wearing a helmet, I could not show the dents, but I
probably could not post to this ng either.

Don't expect anybosy to tell you that they should have been wearing a
helmet. Not having one when you need it is likely to be a once in a
lifetime experience you never get the chance to tell others about.

Oh, you're gonna get flamed for THAT, Roger! How dare you have a personal
opinion based on your personal experience?!? Especially since it MIGHT be
right -- OR WRONG -- it's extra bothersome to techies since it's "feeling
based" and not "look up biased studies to back up my preconceived
notion"-based.

Buckle up!

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 21:57:33 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:52:23 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:

{NOTE: CONTEXT REMOVED. SHOCKING.}

What if the "DATA" didn't show any benefit or advantage
to seat belts (especially in evidently biased "studies" that were
anti-SB to begin with)?

Then I expect and hope I wouldn't use them. I think I said that.

So you'd bang your head on a windshield, then be offered something
that would keep that from happening again, but choose to not use it
because "studies" or "stats" don't PROVE it?

You set up a sort of paradoxical scenario, where a product we know
does something that is easily demonstrated doesn't seem to do it (in
your scenario).

Aren't there "studies" that show seat belts are ineffective in crashes over,
say, X mph? So why wear 'em at all? I think the analogy to a bike helmet
is pretty darned apt.

So I've played along with your game and as I said, I hope I'd make
that decision and if I didn't I hope I'd be honest enough to admit it
was an emotional decision.

And "emotional decisions" are...BAD somehow? Beneath you? OK for yokel
waffle waitresses but not for sophisticated "thinkers" like you (and Frank,
of course)?

Some people analyze things to death. Some people go with their gut. (Of
course, in reality everyone combines these things to various degrees all the
time.)

I advise some yoga and meditation to get in touch with your inner, third-eye
self. Might just loosen you up a bit...

Sorni wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 21:57:33 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:52:23 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:

{NOTE: CONTEXT REMOVED. SHOCKING.}

What if the "DATA" didn't show any benefit or advantage
to seat belts (especially in evidently biased "studies" that were
anti-SB to begin with)?

Then I expect and hope I wouldn't use them. I think I said that.

So you'd bang your head on a windshield, then be offered something
that would keep that from happening again, but choose to not use it
because "studies" or "stats" don't PROVE it?

You set up a sort of paradoxical scenario, where a product we know
does something that is easily demonstrated doesn't seem to do it (in
your scenario).

Aren't there "studies" that show seat belts are ineffective in crashes over,
say, X mph? So why wear 'em at all? I think the analogy to a bike helmet
is pretty darned apt.

So I've played along with your game and as I said, I hope I'd make
that decision and if I didn't I hope I'd be honest enough to admit it
was an emotional decision.

And "emotional decisions" are...BAD somehow? Beneath you? OK for yokel
waffle waitresses but not for sophisticated "thinkers" like you (and Frank,
of course)?

Some people analyze things to death. Some people go with their gut. (Of
course, in reality everyone combines these things to various degrees all the
time.)

I advise some yoga and meditation to get in touch with your inner, third-eye
self. Might just loosen you up a bit...


.....as would a laxative.

Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de
oups.com,
41
Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de
oups.com,
41
Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de
oups.com,
41

even without any
helmet, you will sustain a mortal injury to your brain before your
skull fractures.

You may want to think about that, again.

Or you. The original head injury standards for helmets w ere based on
prevention of skull fractures and those were 500 G. With the move to
the prevention of brain injury instead that went down to the 300 G
that we still see in today's Snell standards.

http://www.smf.org/articles/h elmet_development.html

OR

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/bynam...l-hematoma.htm

http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pr...meteffect.html

Take a look again at what you wrote. It's not a sin to see it may
be far from the truth.

No, you first. The references you supplied show you (a) did not read
what I wrote and (b) do not understand the problem, AT ALL. The first
two are entirely irrelevant and the third, containing capsule
summaries
of other studies, might only possibly be relevant (in fact, those
studies do not have the detail necessary to know). You seem to think I
(a) said it was impossible to have a skull fracture without first
dying, and (b) that it is impossible to have a skull fracture from a
deceleration injury without dying. Indeed you might get that
impression
from just the part you snipped out. The first mis-reading shows a
complete misunderstanding of the entire problem, the second shows an
only somewhat more refined misunderstanding of the entire problem.
Hint: read e.g. the Snell standards, FULLY. And why not, what I wrote
as well, noting what parts of those Snell standards I do and do not
refer to:

# If had landed square on
# the top right side of my head without my helmet, I probably would
have
# fractured my skull. I believe that because I separated my
shoulder,

# and it hit second.

#It's hard to see how that would have happened without your brain
being
#scrambled first. At the 300g deceleration against a flat surace, you
#are not supposed to be at the limit of skull fracture, but you are
#supposed to be at the limit of brain scrambling. In other words, by
the
#time a bicycle helmet (as opposed to a hard hat) is protecting you
#against skull fracture, you are alr eady dead, i.e., even without any
#helmet, you will sustain a mortal injury to your brain before your
#skull fractures. That is not the case if it is you who is at rest
and

#the object that is flying against you, because in that cas e, your
#deceleration is 0g no matter what, comfortably below the 300g limit.
#But that is not what bicycle helmets are designed for.

Last one - patience exhausted. But I'll read your reply.

Oh, be serious. You didn't even have the patience to read it the first
time, much less the second, since you merely repeat your previous
error:

You state that brain fatality will occur be fore a fracture. Take a look
upstairs.

No, you take a look: I said that occurs under certain conditions, which
you omit because you do not understand: your second reference describes
impact by a moving object to a stationary head, which I explicitly
excluded from the situation at hand. The first describes basilar skull
fracture, a rare fracture that occurs either from blows to the head or
extreme forces to the torso not involving the head, as in auto crashes
but not bicycle crashes. The third reference may possibly refer to
situations covered by my statement, but there is no detail so it is
impossible to know.

I will spell it out for you but I do understand it will do no good: as
specified in the Snell, and other standards, impacts may be against
surfaces of many different shapes, from flat to point contact. The
results of impacts to such surfaces differ widely. I referred only to
the best-case scenario for the skull, impact against a flat surface.
Impact to the top right side as described by Beattie, as I replied to,
causing rotation in the coronal plane, is by contrast one of the
worst-case scenarios for brain injury. Impact against a non-flat
surface can easily result in skull fracture before devastating brain
injury. And yes, of course all of this is in terms of likelihoods, as
all the biomechanical head injury data is all based on statistical
norms and probabilities: some skulls are indeed thicker, and numb-er,
than others.

http://www.bartleby.com/107/18.html
As you, or at least someone who reads things, can see from the table
[note: the entries in the last three rows are displaced by one column],
the ultimate compressive strength of bone is about 3x that of white
oak, about 50% greater than granite, and about one-third that of steel,
at considerably less than one-third the weight, i.e. the
strength-to-weight ratio of bone exceeds that of medium steel by about
25%. Let's see; how would that compare with styrofoam exactly?

Dylsxeaie is not an excuse.

a

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Roger wrote:

I can show you the dents in my helmet. I am glad they are not in my head.

Your head is harder than your helmet, so probably your
head would not have sustained any dents.

http://www.bartleby.com/107/18.html
[note: the entries in the last three rows are displaced by one column]
Ultimate compressive strength of bone: about 3x white oak, about 50%
greater than granite, strength-to-weight ratio of bone greater than
that of medium steel by about 25%.

Figures for styrofoam?

Sorni wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

You set up a sort of paradoxical scenario, where a product we know
does something that is easily demonstrated doesn't seem to do it (in
your scenario).

Aren't there "studies" that show seat belts are ineffective in crashes over,
say, X mph? So why wear 'em at all? I think the analogy to a bike helmet
is pretty darned apt.

....
Some people analyze things to death...

And some people never bother to learn anything before giving their
opinions!

Sorni, look at what you wrote above. "Aren't there "studies" that show
seat belts are ineffective in crashes over, say, X mph?"

Wouldn't you be WAY more convincing if you actually produced the
information that you're pretending to use in your argument? Surely you
know that several other people in this discussion would have done that.
If they couldn't find the information immediately, they might at least
give a clue as to where they read it, so it could be checked.

Your way is to ask your opponent in debate if the information you rely
on might possibly be correct!

I'm really not trying to be insulting. But you've got to understand
that bits of hopeful handwaving like that are nowhere near as valid, or
valuable, as real information!

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
Sorni wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

You set up a sort of paradoxical scenario, where a product we know
does something that is easily demonstrated doesn't seem to do it (in
your scenario).

Aren't there "studies" that show seat belts are ineffective in
crashes over, say, X mph? So why wear 'em at all? I think the
analogy to a bike helmet is pretty darned apt.

...
Some people analyze things to death...

And some people never bother to learn anything before giving their
opinions!

Sorni, look at what you wrote above. "Aren't there "studies" that
show seat belts are ineffective in crashes over, say, X mph?"

Wouldn't you be WAY more convincing if you actually produced the
information that you're pretending to use in your argument?

It's irrelevant, Frank. You over-snipped, as usual, but it was about the
/process/ of making a decision, not the decision itself. I don't know why
you can't grasp that.

Surely
you know that several other people in this discussion would have done
that. If they couldn't find the information immediately, they might
at least give a clue as to where they read it, so it could be checked.

Your way is to ask your opponent in debate if the information you rely
on might possibly be correct!

Whoosh.

I'm really not trying to be insulting. But you've got to understand
that bits of hopeful handwaving like that are nowhere near as valid,
or valuable, as real information!

If you can't (or won't) grant a hypothetical, then there's no use continuing
this senseless piddling contest.

Do what you want; so will I.

Sorni wrote:
Aren't there "studies" that show seat belts are ineffective in crashes over,
say, X mph?

Are there such studies?

R.