Inflatable helmet, really

On Sep 7, 12:06*am, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:30:15 -0700 (PDT), in alt.war.vietnam Frank

Krygowski wrote:
More accurately: *Thompson, Rivara and Thompson made no claim about
knees (or rather, leg injuries). *They claimed their data and
calculations showed that helmets were so wonderful, they prevented 85%
of head injuries.

Well, anyone who claims that post facto data "prove" any causal
relationship will believe that roosters cause the sunrise.

Did you understand what I wrote about Robinson's investigation of
T&R's data?


There are good data that show correlation with helmet use and a
reduction in closed head injuries. *This is why you can't rent a
bicycle without one... a helmet, I mean, not a closed head injury.

And do you not understand that what you claim is false? You _can_
rent a bicycle without a helmet. I was recently in a place where that
was common.

BTW, the various bike share schemes instituted in cities around the
world have no helmet requirements. That includes (IIRC) Paris,
Stockholm, Quebec City, Washington DC, etc.

The notable exception is Melbourne, Australia, whose bike share scheme
seems to be failing. That's the one that has a mandatory helmet law.
They say they're expecting people to carry bike helmets all the time
just in case they decide to spontaneously use one of the rental
bikes. And they claim this shouldn't dissuade any potential bike
users.

*An
insurance underwriter could GAF less whether you wear a helmet or a
feather in your jockey strap if it doesn't cut into the bottom line of
the risk. *Underwriters aren't into an academic discussion.

Any comments about our bike club's underwriters, or about LAB's? How
about whoever is insuring those bike rental places I mentioned
earlier, that don't require helmets?

- Frank Krygowski

"!Jones" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:44:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

You should have looked for a different carrier. There are plenty who
will. Our club has perfectly fine insurance with no helmet
require...

Oh, I doubt it.

I travel around Usenet, seldom lingering long in any particular group.
I just came from a strange land where they're arguing whether or not
the holocaust actually happened at all.

As I recall, the last time I was through here, there was a silly
helmet argument going on... and, it seems, I recall your posting
handle; I could be wrong and I don't care enough to look it up. Is
this still the same argument?

But, ya know, if I recall a posting handle from the last time I passed
through six months ago, then the person is either *very* good or a
memorable moron. Which side of that dichotomy do you think applies to
you, Frank?

I'm sorry, but anyone who would argue that getting some kind of
dissipating material between your body and an impacting mass is a bad
idea simply lacks common sense. Any "study" that finds that impact
dissipation does not mitigate the impact is a study conducted by an
idiot; I don't need to read it to know that. It's not science; it's
just basic common sense and a knowledge of how stuff works. Water
runs downhill, Frank... get over it.

Now, I'm aware that I haven't convinced you and that's fine. I am not
of the group that stakes out any particular ground and defends it
against all comers. I never felt the calling to refute every nitwit I
met, so... have a nice day.

Come on back in a year or three. Frank'll still be at it.

Sad, really. BS

On 9/7/2010 12:07 AM, !Jones aka Steven Smith [1] wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:44:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
wrote:

To answer your question of July 12, 2009 [2], yes and no.

You should have looked for a different carrier. There are plenty who
will. Our club has perfectly fine insurance with no helmet
require...

Oh, I doubt it.

On any basis besides being argumentative?

I travel around Usenet, seldom lingering long in any particular group.
I just came from a strange land where they're arguing whether or not
the holocaust actually happened at all.

As I recall, the last time I was through here, there was a silly
helmet argument going on... and, it seems, I recall your posting
handle; I could be wrong and I don't care enough to look it up. Is
this still the same argument?

See
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/5fc2ad2781beb1f0/9e1fa243c739a86c?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=extended+stems#9e 1fa243c739a86c.

But, ya know, if I recall a posting handle from the last time I passed
through six months ago, then the person is either *very* good or a
memorable moron. Which side of that dichotomy do you think applies to
you, Frank?

Troll much?

I'm sorry, but anyone who would argue that getting some kind of
dissipating material between your body and an impacting mass is a bad
idea simply lacks common sense.

Rotational brain injuries, anyone?

Any "study" that finds that impact
dissipation does not mitigate the impact is a study conducted by an
idiot; I don't need to read it to know that. It's not science; it's
just basic common sense and a knowledge of how stuff works. Water
runs downhill, Frank... get over it.

I hope you are not doing any design work on anything significant. Your
statement is so obviously over-simplistic there is no need to comment
further.

Now, I'm aware that I haven't convinced you and that's fine. I am not
of the group that stakes out any particular ground and defends it
against all comers. I never felt the calling to refute every nitwit I
met, so... have a nice day.

Have anything useful to contribute?

[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/77036770714dc5b4?hl=en&dmode=source.
[2]
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/86fff48b6c3efd66?hl=en&dmode=source.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 9/7/2010 6:08 AM, Exclamation Point Jones wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:38:13 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman
wrote:

To answer your question of July 12, 2009 [2], yes and no.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That is why I included the link.

Yes - I moved to Iowa. [1]

No - I will NOT marry you.

[1] Same gender marriages are legal in Iowa.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Sep 7, 1:07*am, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:44:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
You should have looked for a different carrier. *There are plenty who
will. *Our club has perfectly fine insurance with no helmet
require...

Oh, I doubt it.

.... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? The
one with no helmet requirement?

How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
helmet requirement?
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/cl...ple_waiver.pdf

A completely closed mind certainly saves a lot of difficult thinking,
doesn't it?

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 7, 1:51*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:


Come on back in a year or three. *Frank'll still be at it.

And Sornson will still not have learned anything.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 7, 7:57*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 7, 1:07*am, !Jones wrote:

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:44:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
You should have looked for a different carrier. *There are plenty who
will. *Our club has perfectly fine insurance with no helmet
require...

Oh, I doubt it.

... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? *The
one with no helmet requirement?

How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
helmet requirement?http://www.bikeleague.org/members/cl...ple_waiver.pdf

A completely closed mind certainly saves a lot of difficult thinking,
doesn't it?

There are no policy documents at that site -- no coverage form,
endorsements, exclusions, etc. God only knows what the GL policy does
or does not cover and whether there is any exclusion or limitation on
coverage if the club does not get a waiver. An "FAQ" is not an
insurance policy.

Event policies often have provisions that there is no coverage if the
insured did not make a "good faith" effort to get liability waivers
from all participants. Some are even more Draconian.

The whole purpose of the liability waiver is to disclaim liability --
so the fact that a waiver does or does not mention helmets really
makes no difference. The USCF waiver does -- but it also states the
no-drug policy. The USCF's waiver form has a statement of rules aspect
to it. http://www.usacycling.org/forms/rider_release.pdf

-- Jay Beattie.

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 9/7/2010 6:08 AM, Exclamation Point Jones wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:38:13 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman
wrote:

To answer your question of July 12, 2009 [2], yes and no.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That is why I included the link.

Yes - I moved to Iowa. [1]

No - I will NOT marry you.

[1] Same gender marriages are legal in Iowa.


just wait until they are mandatory.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sep 7, 12:35*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:57*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? *The
one with no helmet requirement?

How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
helmet requirement?http://www.bikeleague.org/members/cl...ple_waiver.pdf

There are no policy documents at that site -- no coverage form,
endorsements, exclusions, etc. *God only knows what the GL policy does
or does not cover and whether there is any exclusion or limitation on
coverage if the club does not get a waiver. *An "FAQ" is not an
insurance policy.

It's correct that those documents are not the actual insurance
policies. However, whether helmets are required certainly qualifies
as a Frequently Asked Question. It may be the _most_ Frequently Asked
Question. I can't imagine such a requirement, if it existed, would
not be mentioned in their FAQ document and in their suggested waiver
form.

You mention USCF's helmet requirement. Is that on their waiver form,
or not?

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 7, 12:38*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
!Jones considered Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:06:49
-0500 the perfect time to write:
*An
insurance underwriter could GAF less whether you wear a helmet or a
feather in your jockey strap if it doesn't cut into the bottom line of
the risk. *Underwriters aren't into an academic discussion.

That is why insurance companies don't generally require helmets.
Of course, people who make uninformed or just plain ignorant decisions
to require them for events like to blame insurance companies, but they
are mostly lying about it to evade responsibility for their decisions.

For an exactly parallel situation, we've had people complain from time
to time about being refused service at drive up windows, supposedly
based on insurance policies. And we've had people who successfully
fought those policies report that the insurers had no such anti-bike
policies.

Such policies may exist in some cases. But in other cases, they're
invented for use as smokescreens.

- Frank Krygowski