|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Scientific American does bicycle helmets
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 08:05:32 +0100, Simon Brooke
wrote: And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under. Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to be clever enough to assemble them? Ozark ain't that bright - his must be a pre-assembled one. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Scientific American does bicycle helmets
"Bill Sornson" wrote in message ... Roger Zoul wrote: "Bill Sornson" wrote in message ... Roger Zoul wrote: Cathy Kearns wrote: "Gooserider" wrote in message ... "Cathy Kearns" wrote in message . .. "Gooserider" wrote in message ... "Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... "Gooserider" wrote ---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that the truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on my naked skull. :-) I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help. But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear cut. Probably? How about conceding that taking a truck mirror impact to my naked skull would DEFINTELY caused me injury? I'm guessing he went for probably because it's also slightly possible that withouth the extra 2 inches around your head the truck mirror would have missed entirely. I stoke on a tandem. My helmet is very useful for the times my captain ducks without telling me, and a branch hits my helmet. I'm thinking otherwise the branch would grab my hair, and yeah, that would hurt. (And I happen to love the captain, so occasionally uncalled branches are just part of life.) He hit me at the 6 o'clock position on the helmet. Right above the brain stem. Your assumption isn't correct. Ahh, additional information is always helpful. Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life. Ok. Still, that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike. He didn't say it saved his life; he said it almost certainly prevented serious injury. Any accident that "almost certainly prevented serious injury" almost certainly has the potential to end one's life. Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life." At least be consistent in your baiting. Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this ****. HTH As for the unlikely part, I've had right-side rear view mirrors come very close to hitting me numerous times. I'd guess that it's a fairly common cause of cyclist injury -- from quite minor to severe. Well, this is the only time I've heard of an actual injury here. Read what you wrote: "Still, that's a very unlikely thing to have happen, even on a bike." It isn't. HTH |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Scientific American does bicycle helmets
Simon Brooke wrote:
And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under. Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to be clever enough to assemble them? Well, looking at an on-line translator the Swedish for bridge is "brygga" and entering that into the IKEA website returns the following item, which might suite the mentality of a troll. http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00060763 -- Don Whybrow Sequi Bonum Non Time People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Scientific American does bicycle helmets
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote: Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life." At least be consistent in your baiting. Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this ****. Helmet discussions are FUN! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Scientific American does bicycle helmets
In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes: Roger Zoul wrote: "Bill Sornson" wrote: Read what you wrote: "Ok, so it's very likely that the helmet saved your life." At least be consistent in your baiting. Oh please. If anyone is "baiting" here, it's you. You live for this ****. Helmet discussions are FUN! As much fun as bickerfests with yer Significant Other. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Scientific American does bicycle helmets
On Oct 6, 9:59 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote: Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote: On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, wrote: On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" wrote: From the October 2007 Scientific American in print, Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists? and on the web hehttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...2-99DF-3594A60... Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists (note the different headlines!) This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following: 1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet) 2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet) 3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet) 4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet) It ends in a wishy-washy manner: "Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars." It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars. This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication. OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200, 300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts apiece. Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots (Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings. That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-( Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days. Figures you would be the aforementioned "some idiot" to cross post to URC. Do you spit or swallow, Sherman? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Scientific American does bicycle helmets
On Oct 10, 11:55 am, Neil Brooks wrote:
I hate this topic ... like many other people do. Then why bother reading it, and why bother posting to it? It's not a mandatory topic, you know! I don't care what you wear or don't wear, but ... until you've spent any time in the Netherlands (I was there for 3wks last year), please spare me the comparisons between their country and ours vis-a-vis helmets. In THEIR country, there is a legislative bias IN FAVOR of cyclists that has -- over decades -- permeated into the culture. THEIR country doesn't have a hill worth talking about in 90% of its geography. That means that EVERYBODY bikes ... because everybody CAN bike. That means that EVERYBODY who operates a CAR ALSO has a pretty good chance of being a CYCLIST. THAT means they're more in tune with the cyclist and their needs. We're not Holland ... and Holland isn't us. I don't disagree with anything you said about Holland. However, if you're implying that therefore, Americans (or Brits, or Australians, or anyone else) should wear helmets, your post has done nothing to prove that. And it still remains true that the incidence of helmet wearing across countries seems to vary inversely with bicycle use. IOW, it's only countries where cycling is rare that ordinary cycling is considered an "extreme sport," needing protective gear. Yet there is, AFAICT, no country where ordinary bicycling's risk of serious head injury rises to a level to justify helmet use. - Frank Krygowski |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Scientific American does bicycle helmets
Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman ') wrote: Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" -Bicycle wrote: On Oct 3, 12:05 pm, wrote: On Oct 2, 7:39 pm, "Mike Kruger" wrote: From the October 2007 Scientific American in print, Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists? OK folks, another helmet thread! How many posts will this one go? 200, 300, 400, more? Hell, Frank and Bill ought to be worth about 30 posts apiece. Unless some idiot cross posts it to URC, then the band of Limey idiots (Chapman, Raven et al) will chime in with their paranoid rantings. That's another few hundred worthless wastes of space. :-( Now that you mention it, storage is inexpensive these days. And there seems a near-endless supply of bridges for trolls to hide under. Do IKEA sell troll-bridges these days? And if so, have trolls evolved to be clever enough to assemble them? get them cold enought they get dangeriously intellectual. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone | Feld | Racing | 43 | September 6th 07 09:01 AM |
Ian Walker hits Scientific American | Marc Brett | UK | 0 | May 14th 07 11:42 AM |
Bicycle touring website: A NORTH AMERICAN BICYCLE JOURNEY | [email protected] | General | 3 | August 27th 06 03:16 PM |
Large Bicycle Helmets | Brian Millson | UK | 1 | August 15th 05 07:33 PM |
Large bicycle helmets | Michael | Australia | 6 | October 18th 03 11:25 AM |