published helmet research - not troll

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:09:56 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

What you fail to grasp is that I don't give a **** as to what sort
of bike you ride. The discussion was about helmets.

What you fail to grasp is that by failing to read and comprehend what
was written you made an ass of yourself.

I simply wrote that off as a red herring - an attempt by the
anti-helmet group to avoid talking about the fact that you can in fact
go over the handlebars and end up with a fall to the ground, falling a
distance that is within what the CPSC specs require a helmet to
handle.

DING! Wrong again. I am not part of any "anti-helmet group" (as far
as I am aware there is no such animal). My underlying point was that
these blanket laws fail to take account of the different types of bike
and styles of riding - which you went on to prove better than I ever
could have done.

what I posted was that *I* woudld not go over the bars and *I*
would hit feet first, if I hit. The fact that you failed to see what
was evidently obvious to numerous others is your problem, not mine.
As is the fact that you continued to make increasingly dogmatic
asserions based on incomplete data.

Now you are lying.

url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3132026352d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=38ord0950bott7gni8cqvad8uk1mot93ja %404ax.com

Wrong again. And in the message to which I replied you used the word
"you" (meaning me) and made absolutely no stiplulations about the type
of bike.

When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

I have no idea how many cyclists ride more or less than I do. I
believe based on anecdotal evidence that my riding puts me at least in
the upper quartile of annual road mileage for non-pro cyclists, but
that's a guess.

I know couch potatos who ride bicycles maybe 10 miles per year.
People who are not in good shape simply can't ride 4000 to 5000 miles
per year (and if they work up to that, they'll be in good shape.)

Yes they can - and by the time they've done that they are in good
shape. But this is a pointless argument because, as I said, my point
was that I am an experienced cyclist. Sounds like many of the people
you are disagreeing with actually ride more and know more than you do.

Actually you were describing going over the bars like it was an
everyday danger, and lifting the back wheel likewise. If these things
are as rare for you as you now say, why mention them?

No I didn't. You are simply lying on that one. I said you could go
over the handlebars if you hit the front brakes hard enough and that
this was a case where a helmet might plausibly provide some protection
(the fall is within the range specified by the standards.)

Except that if you are actually moving at much more than walking pace
it isn't within the standards, and if you are not moving at much more
than walking pace it is pretty much impossible to do an endo in the
first place.

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
which is proof that you have a certain agenda.

Too right: I am opposed to people using distortion and junk statistics
to try to force helmets on other people. But I have never made a
secret of that.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 03:00:12 GMT, Joe Riel wrote
in message :

"If I lock the front brake, the front wheel will skid.
The only time I've gone over the bars was when something got lodged in
the front wheel..."

Don't forget the bit about if I hit a car I hit feet-first. Feet
first only really happens on a recumbent :-)

For those who were confused by that, or thought it odd, one click on
the link in my .sig would show my home page complete with pictures of
a recumbent, a triplet and a "safety bicycle".

Those who didn't understand and were wise enough to say nowt, did not
fall into the spiked pit. Bill jumped in with great gusto, and was
promptly impaled :-)

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Dan Becker" wrote in message
...

And -- a cracked helmet. I credit some of my great good luck and
fortune to the fact that as a youth I had taken tumbling classes.

Dan what are the chances that had you not been wearing a helmet that your
head would have missed the ground since cracking indicates only a slight
grazing?

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:47:22 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

The shape doesn't matter. All the matters in the position of the
center of mass relative to where the front tire touches the ground.

Correct. So look at it, and then explain why none of the people
around here who ride tandem (including solo) agree with you. You are
posting from ignorance, we are posting from experience.

I believe the reason the rear wheel doesn't lift is that it's close to
impossible to get enough friction at the front wheel contact patch.
But I'm not the one arguing that you can lift the rear wheel on a
tandem ridden solo, because I have never managed to achieve that
singular feat.

I've done it repeatedly on a mountain bike (at a speed too low to
flip)

But not a tandem.

and that also has an extended wheel base. If you brake slightly
with the rear wheel while riding at a reasonable speed, however,
you'll feel like you are skiding due to the rear tire, and you'll feel
a sort of vibration of swishing through the handlebars, even though
the front tire is not skidding.

Pointless. I know what it feels like when you brake incorrectly. I
also know what it feels like when you brake hard on a tandem ridden
solo, which you have apparently never done.

When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:37:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

It is a bit harder to do an endo on a longer bike, but whether it is
possible or not on a tandem depends on the position of the center of
mass (bike plus rider) relative to where the front wheel contacts the
ground).

So you say. But I have never achieved it, and neither havbe any of
the other people in this thread who have ridden tandems. You have
apparently never ridden a tandem, solo or otherwise. So you are
posting from ignorance.

Restating an invalid assumption does not make it any less invalid.

When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bill Z. wrote:

What I find even more curious is that a short, obscure paper written
by three guys is the only thing that ever gets mentioned by the
anti-helmet camp,

That's because it's pretty much the only statistic quoted by the anti-choice
camp. Or if it isn't, what other study shows this "85%" figure that I keep
seeing?

The "anti-helmet" camp, as you call it, also frequently mentions a number
of other studies, e.g. New Zealand & Australia.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 03:16:55 GMT, Dan Becker
wrote in message :

a cracked helmet.

Bugger innit? They will keep on failing. You do know they aren't
supposed to break don't you? The polystyrene is supposed to squash;
polystyrene foam absorbs almost no energy in brittle failure.

I was hit from the side by a car which accelerated hard into me on the
approach to a roundabout. My protective headgear[1] survived
unscathed, and I still wear it.

[1] A knitted acrylic balaclava.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:15:13 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Have you read the study to which that alludes?

Bill hasn't read beyond the summary of that study and has failed to read
several other studies on which he commented in the past.

Kunich doesn't have a clue as to what I read.

Neither do I, because although I asked I note that you didn't answer.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:32:50 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote in message
. net:

The most telling part of that study is what Thompson and Rivara had to say
to Ms. Robinson concerning it. They made it pretty plain that they were
producing positive articles for their sponsor - Bell.

You have a reference for that?

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:37:17 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Only a zealot like Kunich would try to turn a discussion about
"published helemt research" into the life story of some insignificant
person who has a vanity web site.

Yep, vanity web site is what it is. Amazing, really, that I've
clocked up nearly 41,000 hits from external users this year. Maybe
that's because it includes useful cycling material, a collecting point
for campaign information for the recent helmet law, and some in-jokes
for the UK cycling newsgroup.

I'm not impressed. Everyone should know that the number of "hits" is a
very poor measure of web-site quality. You know, just as you don't
measure the quality of a book by how many people pick a book up in a
bookstore (they may, after all, put the book back down 10 seconds
later after reading the first 3 sentences.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB