Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

Quoting The Wogster :
But think about it for a second, the argument against dynamo lights is
their low power (no matter how you look at it, 3Watts at 3V is pretty
dim).

[3 Watts "at 3V", eh? It's 6V and not pertinent.]
Well, there's one way you can look at it where they aren't; from behind
one with the business end pointed at the road. Focussing is everything; 4
times the power output doesn't help you when 4/5 the power output is going
to light up bats, earthworms, and stuff waaay off to the side you couldn't
hit if you tried.

Seriously. I didn't really believe it either until I tried one.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is First Monday, August.

Quoting SMS :
Bob the Cow wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message
Very appropriate. The reason that some people, i.e. Frank and Guy, are so
unrelenting in their postings of what is known not to be true
That, and they have jobs which feature virtually limitless and unsupervised
access to computers.
How can I get a job like that?

Now a cynic might observe that since you seem to have the time to sustain
discussions with Frank *and* Guy, you already have a job like that. Maybe
you aren't selling too many of the battery systems you so coincidentally
love these days?
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is First Monday, August.

David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Steven Bornfeld :

Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem
to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its intended
function--that safety measures in short do not promote safety--that they
promote risky behavior.


This, specifically, is false. I've mentioned many times to Scharf that the
only effect of lights actually demonstrated by research is that of "any
lights" versus "no lights" (not, alas, "battery lights SMS sells^W likes"
versus "dynamo lights").

Based on the research of the UK's Transport Research Laboratory I am quite
confident that lights improve overall safety.

I also believe that brakes improve overall safety, although I have no
definite statistics (but there's nothing wrong with using supposition
where there _are_ no definite statistics); I think that riding at all with
no brakes is so dangerous that it simply is not possible to increase speed
in order to achieve a similar level of danger on a bike with brakes, and
incredibly difficult to maneuver so as to achieve that level of danger.


I assume you don't race track. ;-)
Seriously, in Brooklyn there are plenty of riders on fixed gears riding
in traffic, though most have a front brake. Of course, most of those
guys are terrific bike handlers.

Steve

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

Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld :
David Damerell wrote:
I also believe that brakes improve overall safety,
[blah]
I assume you don't race track. ;-)

As always I am discussing road riding. I don't have an opinion on helmets
for offroad, either.

Seriously, in Brooklyn there are plenty of riders on fixed gears riding
in traffic, though most have a front brake.

Waitaminute; a fixed gear's rear wheel is effectively braked. None of
these guys are riding brakeless bikes in the sense I mean it, and someone
with a front brake on a fixie has just as good a set of brakes as I do;
the increased difficulty of rear braking is compensated for by the
extremely high reliability of that system.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is First Monday, August.

David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld :

David Damerell wrote:

I also believe that brakes improve overall safety,

[blah]

I assume you don't race track. ;-)


As always I am discussing road riding. I don't have an opinion on helmets
for offroad, either.


Seriously, in Brooklyn there are plenty of riders on fixed gears riding
in traffic, though most have a front brake.


Waitaminute; a fixed gear's rear wheel is effectively braked. None of
these guys are riding brakeless bikes in the sense I mean it, and someone
with a front brake on a fixie has just as good a set of brakes as I do;
the increased difficulty of rear braking is compensated for by the
extremely high reliability of that system.

I don't object if you wish to refer to fixed-gear bikes as "effectively
braked". I would point out that using the legs as brakes takes an
additional skill set. They are also working at a great mechanical
disadvantage (albeit powered by larger muscles) than traditional brakes.
Having watched track riders on the road, there is no doubt in my mind
that most of them are extraordinarily skillful.

Steve

Steve

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

Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld :
David Damerell wrote:
Waitaminute; a fixed gear's rear wheel is effectively braked.
I don't object if you wish to refer to fixed-gear bikes as "effectively
braked". I would point out that using the legs as brakes takes an
additional skill set.

Which is all well and good, but doesn't really get us any closer to the
point; I think brakes have a net positive effect on safety, and hence your
original assertion is unjustified.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is First Monday, August.

David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld :

David Damerell wrote:

Waitaminute; a fixed gear's rear wheel is effectively braked.

I don't object if you wish to refer to fixed-gear bikes as "effectively
braked". I would point out that using the legs as brakes takes an
additional skill set.


Which is all well and good, but doesn't really get us any closer to the
point; I think brakes have a net positive effect on safety, and hence your
original assertion is unjustified.

I'm finished with this thread. I just want to clear up that I never
claimed brakes had no positive effect on safety. I was making an
inference (justified or not) that those who oppose helmet use based on
risk compensation seemed to be saying that as a consequence (of risk
compensation) that devices intended to improve safety would not
accomplish this goal. This was never my opinion; whether my inference
was unfair or not is another issue.

Steve

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

This post is solely intended to drive this thread to 1000 posts. Please
pitch in.

bryanska wrote:

This post is solely intended to drive this thread to 1000 posts.
Please pitch in.

No. I do not believe in your cause.

{pause}

D'OH!

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:


I'm finished with this thread. I just want to clear up that I never
claimed brakes had no positive effect on safety. I was making an
inference (justified or not) that those who oppose helmet use based on
risk compensation seemed to be saying that as a consequence (of risk
compensation) that devices intended to improve safety would not
accomplish this goal. This was never my opinion; whether my inference
was unfair or not is another issue.

It's been clearly explained that your "inference" was a mistake.

If you don't understand your mistake, we can try to explain it again -
but I believe the explanations were quite clear.

- Frank Krygowski