|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impactthus giving protection!
On 2/19/2014 10:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:35:31 +0700, John B. wrote: Sort of like the "air bags" that I believe western cars have built into them? It ain't really "air" in those bags unless "air" can be generated by an explosive charge :-) The term "gas bag" would probably have been politically incorrect and could have had a detrimental effect on consumer acceptance. In western countries, it is perfectly acceptable to lie, distort, exaggerate, mislead, and otherwise mutilate technical descriptions, so as not to confuse the consumer with technically accurate facts. This is why it's called a "seat belt", which neither protects ones seat nor operates like a common trouser belt, and not an "impact safety harness", which would be more technically accurate. Careful what you wish for as you may find yourself riding around on a "human powered single track rotary motion transportation device" instead of a "bicycle". On that note, many measurements of degraded awareness and reaction times clearly show that talking on a telephone or talking on a hands free telephone are virtually the same for car drivers or car simulator drivers and dramatically different from their undistracted performances. Legislators however will not touch a telephone ban so we get the pointless 'hands free' thing which cleverly looks like action while sidestepping the problem. One of many items: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...while-driving/ Humans are endlessly entertaining, yes? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impactthus giving protection!
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:35:31 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
Sort of like the "air bags" that I believe western cars have built into them? It ain't really "air" in those bags unless "air" can be generated by an explosive charge :-) I recently came across an old flyer explaining in detail how not to get killed by one's "air bags" (or "in car explosive devices"). It hinged on always being sure your seat belt is fastened. Oh, and never, ever getting into a crash while being within 10" of the air bag. (Plan ahead!) I've read that the main "safety" benefit of air bags has been from convincing people that they MUST fasten the seat belt, so the bomb in the steering wheel doesn't kill them. Every car sold in the U.S. comes with such warnings. It still seems it would have been cheaper and more effective to use a steering wheel spike. - Frank Krygowski |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impactthus giving protection!
On 2/19/2014 11:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:35:31 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: Sort of like the "air bags" that I believe western cars have built into them? It ain't really "air" in those bags unless "air" can be generated by an explosive charge :-) I recently came across an old flyer explaining in detail how not to get killed by one's "air bags" (or "in car explosive devices"). It hinged on always being sure your seat belt is fastened. Oh, and never, ever getting into a crash while being within 10" of the air bag. (Plan ahead!) I've read that the main "safety" benefit of air bags has been from convincing people that they MUST fasten the seat belt, so the bomb in the steering wheel doesn't kill them. Every car sold in the U.S. comes with such warnings. It still seems it would have been cheaper and more effective to use a steering wheel spike. - Frank Krygowski You reminded me of a print shop where I saw this sign: PLAN AHEA d -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impact thus giving protection!
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:09:39 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On that note, many measurements of degraded awareness and reaction times clearly show that talking on a telephone or talking on a hands free telephone are virtually the same for car drivers or car simulator drivers and dramatically different from their undistracted performances. Unfortunately, I'm in another class of talking on the radio users that seem to be a legislative borderline case. I'm a ham radio operating and I like to talk on the radio while driving. I've been doing this since about 1966 without even a suggestion of trouble. I use both a mobile radio, with speaker and coil cord attached microphone, as well as walkie talkies of varying size and style. To the best of my knowledge, none of the local hams has ever had an auto accident attributable to distracted driving due to ham radio. The same can be said of other means of 2-way mobile radio communications used by public safety and various business dispatch services. So, what's the difference? 2-way radio uses a simplex or half-duplex method of conversation, where you can talk or listen, but only one at a time. Cellular is full duplex, where you can do both at the same time. My theory and guess(tm) is that most people cannot handle full duplex conversations, that requires them to talk and listen at the same time, but have little difficulty doing them one at a time. I've done zero research on the topic, but if proven to be true, the solution would be simply to program the cell phone to operate in half duplex or PTT (push to talk) mode, thereby simulating a 2-way radio conversation. This would make a dandy research project if someone wants to pursue it. Legislators however will not touch a telephone ban so we get the pointless 'hands free' thing which cleverly looks like action while sidestepping the problem. Well, as one of the few people I know to have received a rather expensive ticket for driving and talking on a cell phone without the alleged benefits of a BlueGoof headset, I can testify that the revenue enhancement provisions of the law are fully functional. The story of why I received the ticket is rather interesting, although it has nothing to do with bicycles. Details on request. One of many items: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...while-driving/ Texting is another story. It would not take much technology to program the MEMS accelerometer in the phone to not allow texting while the phone is moving. Humans are endlessly entertaining, yes? Legislators would also be entertaining except they cost me far too much time and money. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impactthus giving protection!
Lieb has a talk ticket ?????/eyeyyehahhahhah
the Morons giving me trap ticket in Mobville....now flooding.....tried pinning one in for using a 17" GPS screen. While many people go thru life disarticulating, we may theorize in our society an increase in dullusional mental processes esp while speaking. OTOTH In the environs, I disinfrequent, the 'HI am here where are you' walkie talkie position on foot has dis-apped prob due to rates. Talk became TALK TV you are ON DUDE...the Pust office is an exampull. work this in. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impact thus giving protection!
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:45:18 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:35:31 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: Sort of like the "air bags" that I believe western cars have built into them? It ain't really "air" in those bags unless "air" can be generated by an explosive charge :-) I recently came across an old flyer explaining in detail how not to get killed by one's "air bags" (or "in car explosive devices"). It hinged on always being sure your seat belt is fastened. Oh, and never, ever getting into a crash while being within 10" of the air bag. (Plan ahead!) I've read that the main "safety" benefit of air bags has been from convincing people that they MUST fasten the seat belt, so the bomb in the steering wheel doesn't kill them. Every car sold in the U.S. comes with such warnings. It still seems it would have been cheaper and more effective to use a steering wheel spike. - Frank Krygowski Given that the basic cause for global warming is too many people it would seem that a start on the problem would be to remove these "safety" devices from automobiles. Perhaps a government sponsored program. "Help with solving global warming. Drive without a seat belt" :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impact thus giving protection!
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:09:39 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2014 10:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:35:31 +0700, John B. wrote: Sort of like the "air bags" that I believe western cars have built into them? It ain't really "air" in those bags unless "air" can be generated by an explosive charge :-) The term "gas bag" would probably have been politically incorrect and could have had a detrimental effect on consumer acceptance. In western countries, it is perfectly acceptable to lie, distort, exaggerate, mislead, and otherwise mutilate technical descriptions, so as not to confuse the consumer with technically accurate facts. This is why it's called a "seat belt", which neither protects ones seat nor operates like a common trouser belt, and not an "impact safety harness", which would be more technically accurate. Careful what you wish for as you may find yourself riding around on a "human powered single track rotary motion transportation device" instead of a "bicycle". On that note, many measurements of degraded awareness and reaction times clearly show that talking on a telephone or talking on a hands free telephone are virtually the same for car drivers or car simulator drivers and dramatically different from their undistracted performances. Legislators however will not touch a telephone ban so we get the pointless 'hands free' thing which cleverly looks like action while sidestepping the problem. One of many items: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...while-driving/ Humans are endlessly entertaining, yes? I've read several studies that demonstrated that just about anything you do with a cell phone results in decreased attention paid to the major subject of directing the auto down the road in a more or less safe manner. Although the hands free thingee does tend to be the better of the two choices as decreeing that even though your phone is ringing you will not answer it is likely to be futile. But, I'm not sure that advocating that the government rule by force, even when it is for the public's benefit, is the answer either. After all the ultimate solution to the problem of "bicycle deaths" that I hear so loudly lamented, is to simply ban the sale or use of bicycles. I'm sure that a mandatory penalty of, say a $1,000 fine and a year in prison for the sale or use of a bicycle would essentially eliminate bicycle deaths. -- Cheers, John B. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impact thus giving protection!
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:27:30 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:09:39 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On that note, many measurements of degraded awareness and reaction times clearly show that talking on a telephone or talking on a hands free telephone are virtually the same for car drivers or car simulator drivers and dramatically different from their undistracted performances. Unfortunately, I'm in another class of talking on the radio users that seem to be a legislative borderline case. I'm a ham radio operating and I like to talk on the radio while driving. I've been doing this since about 1966 without even a suggestion of trouble. I use both a mobile radio, with speaker and coil cord attached microphone, as well as walkie talkies of varying size and style. To the best of my knowledge, none of the local hams has ever had an auto accident attributable to distracted driving due to ham radio. The same can be said of other means of 2-way mobile radio communications used by public safety and various business dispatch services. I suspect that the answer you your thesis is that the number of Hams who are riding around talking on the radio is insufficient to make a dent in the statistics. Even when I was a practicing Ham and paid attention it was a very rare instance when I noted a ham radio antenna on an automobile. So, what's the difference? 2-way radio uses a simplex or half-duplex method of conversation, where you can talk or listen, but only one at a time. Cellular is full duplex, where you can do both at the same time. My theory and guess(tm) is that most people cannot handle full duplex conversations, that requires them to talk and listen at the same time, but have little difficulty doing them one at a time. I've done zero research on the topic, but if proven to be true, the solution would be simply to program the cell phone to operate in half duplex or PTT (push to talk) mode, thereby simulating a 2-way radio conversation. This would make a dandy research project if someone wants to pursue it. Legislators however will not touch a telephone ban so we get the pointless 'hands free' thing which cleverly looks like action while sidestepping the problem. Well, as one of the few people I know to have received a rather expensive ticket for driving and talking on a cell phone without the alleged benefits of a BlueGoof headset, I can testify that the revenue enhancement provisions of the law are fully functional. The story of why I received the ticket is rather interesting, although it has nothing to do with bicycles. Details on request. Maybe we should eliminate the financial penalties, after all historically penalties were usually non-financial, perhaps because money was less common. For example, the penalty for stealing once was, and is today in some places, branding on the cheek, or loss of a hand. We could decree that the penalty for talking on a hand phone while driving would be loss of an ear for the first instance. Maybe a nose for the second and so on. Simply remove that nasty lucre from the legal equation. One of many items: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...while-driving/ Texting is another story. It would not take much technology to program the MEMS accelerometer in the phone to not allow texting while the phone is moving. Humans are endlessly entertaining, yes? Legislators would also be entertaining except they cost me far too much time and money. -- Cheers, John B. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impact thus giving protection!
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 03:14:39 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote: John B. considered Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:55:19 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:45:18 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:35:31 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: Sort of like the "air bags" that I believe western cars have built into them? It ain't really "air" in those bags unless "air" can be generated by an explosive charge :-) I recently came across an old flyer explaining in detail how not to get killed by one's "air bags" (or "in car explosive devices"). It hinged on always being sure your seat belt is fastened. Oh, and never, ever getting into a crash while being within 10" of the air bag. (Plan ahead!) I've read that the main "safety" benefit of air bags has been from convincing people that they MUST fasten the seat belt, so the bomb in the steering wheel doesn't kill them. Every car sold in the U.S. comes with such warnings. It still seems it would have been cheaper and more effective to use a steering wheel spike. - Frank Krygowski Given that the basic cause for global warming is too many people it would seem that a start on the problem would be to remove these "safety" devices from automobiles. Perhaps a government sponsored program. "Help with solving global warming. Drive without a seat belt" :-) Doesn't remove the desirability of the spike though. Just think how careful drivers would become once it became known that even having a cyclist bounce off your windscreen could impale you on one of those! Ah, you forget the ingenuities of American youth... A quick twist and jerk and the spike is off. Another lick or two and it can be remounted as an anti personnel device on the right end of the "bumper" (bumper is in quotation marks as I'm not sure they have those any more :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impactthus giving protection!
ambergris
studies conclude. people are paid for 'conducting' studies or endorph thinking or both. Beneath that level of intelligence there is a large group FOROTO ! untouched by THE FACTS. Here we see the target. eyeyahhhahhahhaha. tar get We'll get a study out on that next week. Common drivers are physically unaware of the actual perceptual and motor control level necessary for driving...talking or this illustrative TEXTING idiocy as a gross reduction in driving ability and cycle avoidance isnot immediately apparent there. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impactthus giving protection! | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 4 | February 12th 14 12:59 PM |
Semi-OT People believe helmets are designed to break on impactthus giving protection! | Duane[_3_] | Techniques | 1 | February 11th 14 11:34 PM |
Everybody in this world wants to be fashionable. To sport a trendy and stylish look is a dream of youngsters as well as elders. Various designed clothes that we put on create a lasting impression in the minds of people. Apart from style and look, tho | [email protected] | General | 0 | April 21st 08 06:18 AM |
(Semi OT) Yet more helmets in the news... | Sorni | Techniques | 5 | June 14th 06 07:26 AM |