published helmet research - not troll

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

Sigh. Let's see. I give a number like 20 -30 lb more to be a bit more
conservative, and we have a 150-200lb rider on the pedals, no one on
the rear seat, and you claim an extra trailing 10 pounds is going to
signficantly shift the center of mass.

Bill, my touring bike was heavier than my tandem. I rode the tandem solo for
50 miles on at least one occassion. I think that I qualify as having
infinitely more experience with tandems than you. It is impossible to do an
endo on a tandem whether you doubt that or not.

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). This is pretty close to what you have with a road bike or
mountain bike, given the position of the rider and the relatively low
weight of the rest of the bike. With both road bikes and mountain
bikes, you can go over the handlebars if you brake hard enough.

Riding a tandem solo for "50 miles on at least one occassion" is
completely irrelevant - having to brake hard enough to risk going
over the handlebars is not a once per 50 mile event. It isn't
even a once per 1000 mile event.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:10:17 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Wrong again. Actually a tandem does not need to be more than 10lb or
so heavier than a solo, but the centre of gravity is much further
back, and when you get round to that basic mechanics course you
advocate you will find that this makes a huge difference to the
likelihood of doing an endo.

Sigh. Let's see. I give a number like 20 -30 lb more to be a bit more
conservative, and we have a 150-200lb rider on the pedals, no one on
the rear seat, and you claim an extra trailing 10 pounds is going to
signficantly shift the center of mass.

Yes, because the bike is a completely different shape.

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.


Which I have done, several times. And guess what? It's close to
impossible to lift the back wheel because there ain't enough friction
at the contact patch. A bit like a recumbent in thyat respect,
really.

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

It's not like a recumbent due to the center of mass of the rider
being at the same height (and about the same fore/aft position)
as on a road or mountain bike.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:10:17 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Wrong again. Actually a tandem does not need to be more than 10lb or
so heavier than a solo, but the centre of gravity is much further
back, and when you get round to that basic mechanics course you
advocate you will find that this makes a huge difference to the
likelihood of doing an endo.

Sigh. Let's see. I give a number like 20 -30 lb more to be a bit more
conservative, and we have a 150-200lb rider on the pedals, no one on
the rear seat, and you claim an extra trailing 10 pounds is going to
signficantly shift the center of mass.

Yes, because the bike is a completely different shape.

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.

.... and the shape significantly affects the position of the center of mass.

--
Benjamin Lewis

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

I'm going to reply to just this one and skip nearly all your other
posts. You are replying to just about every message I post and
I'm not going to waste much time on you.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:04:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :


How do you interpret "I" in this case as meaning anything but I, the
author of the posts?

Because the laws of physics do not treat you as a special case, and
the discussion was on a newsgroup topic.

No, because you failed to understand what I was saying, preferring to
stick rigidly to your view of what I would be riding rather than the
reality of what I am riding.

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.

Not only that, having been given several increasingly broad hints, you
still didn't get the point.

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. The "broad hints" were also phrased as personal insults for
the most part, so I ignored them - the people in question (at least
two) have long-standing grudges going back a decade.

You home page is not required reading. I'm refering to what you are
posting here.

And 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. I specifically stated that I was talking about
a road and mountain bike while riding on a straight line on dry,
clean pavement.

Oh come off it. You gave a quantitative number 4000-5000 miles per
year. How many couch potatos put in that mileage? And what "research"
do you actually do besides using the word repeatedly?

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.)

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.)

As to "lifting the back wheel", I merely pointed out that at very low
speeds (too low to flip) you can do this safely as an experiment:
you'll lift the rear wheel, the bike will stop, and the rear wheel
will fall back down to the ground. Keep you feet out of the toe
clips so you can put either down on the ground if needed. :-)


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

which is proof that you have a certain agenda.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" 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. At one point these
people (Kunich and the other liars) posted statements that I never
read any of this stuff when I *quoted* the text from the report we
were discussing, and which the anti-helmet crew was misrepresenting.
One fool replied to a message where I in fact quoted the text of a
report as he insisted that I never read it. Some people new to the
discussion called him on it.

Kunich is simply mouthing off, regurgitating the crap that spewed out
of his mouth (keyboard, actually) about 10 years ago.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

The thing is, I have actually read a lot of the published research on
helmets. How much of it have you read? Any?

Bill once read a summary of the Thompson study and that is the sum total of
his research into helmet and more than he thinks he needs to show up
everyone else.

Tom Kunich, according to his own statements posted on usenet, once
ended up being dragged off to jail for "back-handing" his girlfriend.
He posted that as part of a complaint about how unfairly he was
treated. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22back+handed%22+author:Kunich&hl=en&lr =&ie=UTF-8&selm=_PXb9.10094%24N%254.819675%40newsread2.prod .itd.earthlink.net&rnum=1
and look at the last paragraph of the post.

Kunich, while what you did years ago is bad enough, you've been caught
lying repeatedly in the current dicussion as part of your continual
personal attacks. As far as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Joe Riel writes:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Right! It was quite obvious to the great majority - and I think the
great majority spent a lot of time smiling and shaking our heads at
Bill.

I'd just as soon not step into the middle of this, however, I failed
to pick up that Guy was riding a recumbent. His post was confusing:

"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..."

There is no mention of a recumbent. Furthermore, there is nothing
to indicate that the circumstances [i.e. type of bike] of the second
sentence are different from that of the first (if they aren't
different, how'd you go over the bars---did the recumbent flip?)


Of course, Joe is right - Guy mentioned nothing about recumbents, and
I had clarified in a post immediately or shortly following that I was
talking about road or mountain bikes. Also, Guy could, of course,
have simply clarified the discussion by stating he rides a recumbent
instead of being coy about it. He didn't because he is playing
childish games (and I have better things to do with my time than plod
through his web page in any case.)

Krygowski and his stooges (Kunich and one or two others in particular)
are anti-helmet fanatics who use the sort of tricks typical of
propaganda, with a slant towards character assasination. Kunich and
some others do the dirty work, and Krygowski pretends to be "above the
fray" while posting the ocassional snide remark. They are all,
however, equally dishonest.

The technique they are using is a variant on a logical fallacy called
"equivocation" where a word is used in two separate meanings. Here,
they are using the same trick here, trying to pretend post facto that
a discussion about bikes in general is somehow a discussion about
Guy's tastes in bicycles in particular.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Tom Keats" wrote in message
...

Exactly. And nobody here is doing either. But people /are/
bringing to light the more questionable aspects of "helmet
research" that's invoked to support MHLs. You don't seem to like
people doing that. What I'd really like to understand is: why?

In my years of obseving Zaumen I'd say that the reason he so vehemently
supports mandatory helmet laws is because he is a fascist.

This is another of Kunich's numerous lies. He will not be able to
produce a single post showing any support on my part for mandatory
helmet laws. In fact, I earlier on this thread (and on the discussion
10 years ago) I stated that I had opposed mandatory helmet laws.

I'll skip Kunich's "fascist" statement - it is simply absurd when
all the usenet fascists complain I'm a "lefty liberal" or whatever
it is they rant about.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

The topic of this thread is not "all about you."

Apparently you believe that it's all about you.

Every time I see your participation in thread I re-learn why they wouldn't
let you into that bike shop in Cupertino where you've "never been".


Other of Kunich's lies (and one so obvious that even he should be
embarassed by it.) Interestingly, he seems to blame me for other
equally silly bozos responding to everything I post.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:52:47 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

The reason for studying how well helmets work is to gather data that
might help improve their designs. You don't need research to pass
helmet laws - you hire a lobbyist and start making large campaign
contributions.

Except that whenever helmet laws are debated the helmet advocates
circulate as fact the TR&T findings that helmets prevent 85% of head
injuries and 88% of brain inhuries, both of which claims are bogus and
even the original authors no longer make them.

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, treating it as the greatest threat to western
civilation since Atilla the Hun. Are they going to blame Osama next?

That single study is the most widely quoted in the world, even though
anybody who knows what they are talking about knows that it is wrong.
Randy, who runs the BHSI website, says that changing it would be
"unhelpful". Which sounds a lot like "don't confuse people with the
facts" to me.

You guys just finished disparaging the BLSI as a web site run by
a single person as kind of a hobby. And the only people I've
seen widely quoting "that single study" are Kunich, Krygowski,
and a handful of others.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB