published helmet research - not troll
 

"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?

published helmet research - not troll
 

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

published helmet research - not troll
 

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

published helmet research - not troll
 

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.

published helmet research - not troll
 

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

published helmet research - not troll
 

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

published helmet research - not troll
 

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

published helmet research - not troll
 

"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

published helmet research - not troll
 

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:43:55 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Of course, Joe is right - Guy mentioned nothing about recumbents

On the other hand, you went off on one about how *I* could not
possibly be right, even though the hint was broad enough that everyone
else either got it or remained wisely silent.

Her'e a saying you might like to learn and take to heart: it is better
to keep your mouth shut and let everybody think you are a fool, than
to open it and remove all doubt.

Here's another: 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

published helmet research - not troll
 

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:26:59 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

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.)

And I can track the visits in depth, the inside pages get many more
hits than the homepage. But whatever. At least it is a site which
some peopel find useful, mainly because I have done quite a bit of
work on understanding the helmet issue, which is a complex one.

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