Helmet Article

On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 8:31:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:29:34 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:45:58 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 8/26/2020 3:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

BTW, your statement that "For reasons known only to them they decided that rotational forces were causing concussion" is bizarre because, as Frank will educate you, rotational forces are what account for many concussions. Whip lash will give you a concussion without even hitting your head. Your concussions were caused by your brain sloshing around inside your skull unless you had a focal injury like a skull fracture. Frank's whole point has been that rotational injury is not reduced by wearing a helmet, which is basically true except now with MIPS -- or previously with a sloppy fitting helmet. MIPS came along because helmets were not doing much to reduce concussions resulting from rotational injury, but I'm sure you know that.

Helmet prices have gone up due to MIPS.

At Costco, the MIPS version of the Freetown helmet is $30, while the
non-MIPS version (no longer sold) was only $20. That's a 50% increase in
price for MIPS. The online Costco price of the same MIPS helmet is $40
https://www.costco.com/freetown-gear-%2526-gravel-lumiere-mips-helmet.product.100587455.html.
It would be a happy day if I could get a MIPS helmet for the equivalent of 40 American dollars. The last helmet I bought cost over 70 Euro, most of which was unproductive state loadings of some kind, 23pc for sales tax (VAT) alone.

Andre Jute
VAT = Value Added Tax -- don't make me laugh!
Frank, as usual makes another bizarre statement based upon total ignorance of the mechanics of a concussion. Just as concussions for football players were caused by linear head butts, serious concussions to bicyclist have rotations forces strictly as a happenstance and it it the linear blow of a head under the forces of gravity that cause concussions and not the slight twisting motion of the head swiveling on its neck away from that collision.. What we need more of is Jay showing us his great knowledge of concussions by showing us the resume of one of his witnesses.
I don't know why I bother. You won't read it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457518303713 Read the cited studies for further information on rotational TBI. See also https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/41e...82c8e853bb.pdf

Here's a quotable quote:

Rotational acceleration is a second type of acceleration that is common during either impact or impulsive head loading. Due to the physical properties of the highly organized brain,20–24 brain tissue deforms more readily in response to shear forces compared with other biologic tissues. Rapid head rotations generate shear forces throughout the brain, and, therefore, rotational accelerations have a high potential to cause shear-induced tissue damage. The importance of shear forces were confirmed in series of studies across different laboratories, leading to the conventional wisdom that shear deformation caused by rotational acceleration is the predominant mechanism of injury in concussion.25–27 If the head motion is constrained to exclude any rotational motion, it is difficult to produce traumatic unconsciousness. In comparison, introducing or allowing a rotational component after impact substantially increases the likelihood of an unconscious episode.28 This injury mechanism applies across the severity spectrum; the primary difference across the spectrum is the amount of brain tissue injured and the severity of injury at a given site within the brain.26

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979340/

And yes, I have access to MD and PhD experts with impressive resumes if I have questions about helmets and brain injury. They totally disagree with you, as does the scientific literature, but what do those scientists know. They just read a lot of books and stuff.

-- Jay Beattie.
More science from the man who doesn't know why lemons are sour and oranges are sweet. Bontrager testing of the MIPS system showed no less impact mediation on helmets with their MIPS system than without in actual accidents. Inventing the use of rotational forces when in real life they do not appear seems to be the way of life of a lawyer. Again you show that you don't know anything about engineering or science but are willing to quote articles the gist of which is beyond your capacity to understand.

Rather than talking about thing you don't know about why don't you talk about what you do - about Portland be a nice peaceful place without fires being set or people being killed. Just your sort of Town Chicago is - Your kind of town.

On 8/27/2020 1:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 8:31:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:29:34 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:45:58 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 8/26/2020 3:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

BTW, your statement that "For reasons known only to them they decided that rotational forces were causing concussion" is bizarre because, as Frank will educate you, rotational forces are what account for many concussions. Whip lash will give you a concussion without even hitting your head. Your concussions were caused by your brain sloshing around inside your skull unless you had a focal injury like a skull fracture. Frank's whole point has been that rotational injury is not reduced by wearing a helmet, which is basically true except now with MIPS -- or previously with a sloppy fitting helmet. MIPS came along because helmets were not doing much to reduce concussions resulting from rotational injury, but I'm sure you know that.

Helmet prices have gone up due to MIPS.

At Costco, the MIPS version of the Freetown helmet is $30, while the
non-MIPS version (no longer sold) was only $20. That's a 50% increase in
price for MIPS. The online Costco price of the same MIPS helmet is $40
https://www.costco.com/freetown-gear-%2526-gravel-lumiere-mips-helmet.product.100587455.html.
It would be a happy day if I could get a MIPS helmet for the equivalent of 40 American dollars. The last helmet I bought cost over 70 Euro, most of which was unproductive state loadings of some kind, 23pc for sales tax (VAT) alone.

Andre Jute
VAT = Value Added Tax -- don't make me laugh!
Frank, as usual makes another bizarre statement based upon total ignorance of the mechanics of a concussion. Just as concussions for football players were caused by linear head butts, serious concussions to bicyclist have rotations forces strictly as a happenstance and it it the linear blow of a head under the forces of gravity that cause concussions and not the slight twisting motion of the head swiveling on its neck away from that collision. What we need more of is Jay showing us his great knowledge of concussions by showing us the resume of one of his witnesses.


I don't know why I bother. You won't read it...

You've got that right!

Those papers do give clues to both the known importance of rotational
acceleration and current science's vague understanding of the detail
mechanics of concussions. IOW, they know rotational accelerations cause
more brain damage than linear accelerations. They don't know exactly why.

But again, the papers are essentially theoretical laboratory or
simulation studies. One calculates hypothetical changes in brain injury
risk using a formula provided by another researcher, but then admits the
results of those calculations are to be taken with many grains of salt.
So far there is no clinical data indicating real extra benefit from
these fancier helmets.

When looking at this issue using a wider lens, my question is always
this: Why so much scientific effort directed toward _bicycle_ helmets?
Any unbiased look at sources of serious TBI shows that bicycling is far
down the list of causes. Bicycling doesn't even make most lists of
causes of TBI fatalities.

But in certain circles, pointing that out is heresy. Helmeteers start
with the dogma that all bicycling is very dangerous. Any reference to
its low relative risk is scorned and mocked.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 1:05:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2020 1:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 8:31:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:29:34 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:45:58 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 8/26/2020 3:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

BTW, your statement that "For reasons known only to them they decided that rotational forces were causing concussion" is bizarre because, as Frank will educate you, rotational forces are what account for many concussions. Whip lash will give you a concussion without even hitting your head. Your concussions were caused by your brain sloshing around inside your skull unless you had a focal injury like a skull fracture. Frank's whole point has been that rotational injury is not reduced by wearing a helmet, which is basically true except now with MIPS -- or previously with a sloppy fitting helmet. MIPS came along because helmets were not doing much to reduce concussions resulting from rotational injury, but I'm sure you know that.

Helmet prices have gone up due to MIPS.

At Costco, the MIPS version of the Freetown helmet is $30, while the
non-MIPS version (no longer sold) was only $20. That's a 50% increase in
price for MIPS. The online Costco price of the same MIPS helmet is $40
https://www.costco.com/freetown-gear-%2526-gravel-lumiere-mips-helmet.product.100587455.html.
It would be a happy day if I could get a MIPS helmet for the equivalent of 40 American dollars. The last helmet I bought cost over 70 Euro, most of which was unproductive state loadings of some kind, 23pc for sales tax (VAT) alone.

Andre Jute
VAT = Value Added Tax -- don't make me laugh!
Frank, as usual makes another bizarre statement based upon total ignorance of the mechanics of a concussion. Just as concussions for football players were caused by linear head butts, serious concussions to bicyclist have rotations forces strictly as a happenstance and it it the linear blow of a head under the forces of gravity that cause concussions and not the slight twisting motion of the head swiveling on its neck away from that collision. What we need more of is Jay showing us his great knowledge of concussions by showing us the resume of one of his witnesses.


I don't know why I bother. You won't read it...

You've got that right!

Those papers do give clues to both the known importance of rotational
acceleration and current science's vague understanding of the detail
mechanics of concussions. IOW, they know rotational accelerations cause
more brain damage than linear accelerations. They don't know exactly why.

But again, the papers are essentially theoretical laboratory or
simulation studies. One calculates hypothetical changes in brain injury
risk using a formula provided by another researcher, but then admits the
results of those calculations are to be taken with many grains of salt.
So far there is no clinical data indicating real extra benefit from
these fancier helmets.

When looking at this issue using a wider lens, my question is always
this: Why so much scientific effort directed toward _bicycle_ helmets?
Any unbiased look at sources of serious TBI shows that bicycling is far
down the list of causes. Bicycling doesn't even make most lists of
causes of TBI fatalities.

But in certain circles, pointing that out is heresy. Helmeteers start
with the dogma that all bicycling is very dangerous. Any reference to
its low relative risk is scorned and mocked.

We can stipulate that you made all your usual helmet arguments and that I made all my usual helmet arguments. Please signify your acceptance of this stipulation by signing in the space provided below and returning this letter to me in the enclosed, self-addressed stamped envelope.

Sincerely, Jay Beattie.


______________________________
Frank Krygowski

August______, 2020.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:05:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/27/2020 1:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 8:31:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:29:34 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:45:58 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 8/26/2020 3:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

BTW, your statement that "For reasons known only to them they decided that rotational forces were causing concussion" is bizarre because, as Frank will educate you, rotational forces are what account for many concussions. Whip lash will give you a concussion without even hitting your head. Your concussions were caused by your brain sloshing around inside your skull unless you had a focal injury like a skull fracture. Frank's whole point has been that rotational injury is not reduced by wearing a helmet, which is basically true except now with MIPS -- or previously with a sloppy fitting helmet. MIPS came along because helmets were not doing much to reduce concussions resulting from rotational injury, but I'm sure you know that.

Helmet prices have gone up due to MIPS.

At Costco, the MIPS version of the Freetown helmet is $30, while the
non-MIPS version (no longer sold) was only $20. That's a 50% increase in
price for MIPS. The online Costco price of the same MIPS helmet is $40
https://www.costco.com/freetown-gear-%2526-gravel-lumiere-mips-helmet.product.100587455.html.
It would be a happy day if I could get a MIPS helmet for the equivalent of 40 American dollars. The last helmet I bought cost over 70 Euro, most of which was unproductive state loadings of some kind, 23pc for sales tax (VAT) alone.

Andre Jute
VAT = Value Added Tax -- don't make me laugh!
Frank, as usual makes another bizarre statement based upon total ignorance of the mechanics of a concussion. Just as concussions for football players were caused by linear head butts, serious concussions to bicyclist have rotations forces strictly as a happenstance and it it the linear blow of a head under the forces of gravity that cause concussions and not the slight twisting motion of the head swiveling on its neck away from that collision. What we need more of is Jay showing us his great knowledge of concussions by showing us the resume of one of his witnesses.


I don't know why I bother. You won't read it...

You've got that right!

Those papers do give clues to both the known importance of rotational
acceleration and current science's vague understanding of the detail
mechanics of concussions. IOW, they know rotational accelerations cause
more brain damage than linear accelerations. They don't know exactly why.

But again, the papers are essentially theoretical laboratory or
simulation studies. One calculates hypothetical changes in brain injury
risk using a formula provided by another researcher, but then admits the
results of those calculations are to be taken with many grains of salt.
So far there is no clinical data indicating real extra benefit from
these fancier helmets.

When looking at this issue using a wider lens, my question is always
this: Why so much scientific effort directed toward _bicycle_ helmets?
Any unbiased look at sources of serious TBI shows that bicycling is far
down the list of causes. Bicycling doesn't even make most lists of
causes of TBI fatalities.

But in certain circles, pointing that out is heresy. Helmeteers start
with the dogma that all bicycling is very dangerous. Any reference to
its low relative risk is scorned and mocked.

But Frank, it isn't just bicycle riding that is dangerous. Practically
everything you do is fraught with peril. They even have helmets for
toddlers.

It is a big, wide, terrible, dangerous, world out there.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 8/27/2020 6:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 1:05:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2020 1:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 8:31:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:29:34 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:45:58 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 8/26/2020 3:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

BTW, your statement that "For reasons known only to them they decided that rotational forces were causing concussion" is bizarre because, as Frank will educate you, rotational forces are what account for many concussions. Whip lash will give you a concussion without even hitting your head. Your concussions were caused by your brain sloshing around inside your skull unless you had a focal injury like a skull fracture. Frank's whole point has been that rotational injury is not reduced by wearing a helmet, which is basically true except now with MIPS -- or previously with a sloppy fitting helmet. MIPS came along because helmets were not doing much to reduce concussions resulting from rotational injury, but I'm sure you know that.

Helmet prices have gone up due to MIPS.

At Costco, the MIPS version of the Freetown helmet is $30, while the
non-MIPS version (no longer sold) was only $20. That's a 50% increase in
price for MIPS. The online Costco price of the same MIPS helmet is $40
https://www.costco.com/freetown-gear-%2526-gravel-lumiere-mips-helmet.product.100587455.html.
It would be a happy day if I could get a MIPS helmet for the equivalent of 40 American dollars. The last helmet I bought cost over 70 Euro, most of which was unproductive state loadings of some kind, 23pc for sales tax (VAT) alone.

Andre Jute
VAT = Value Added Tax -- don't make me laugh!
Frank, as usual makes another bizarre statement based upon total ignorance of the mechanics of a concussion. Just as concussions for football players were caused by linear head butts, serious concussions to bicyclist have rotations forces strictly as a happenstance and it it the linear blow of a head under the forces of gravity that cause concussions and not the slight twisting motion of the head swiveling on its neck away from that collision. What we need more of is Jay showing us his great knowledge of concussions by showing us the resume of one of his witnesses.


I don't know why I bother. You won't read it...

You've got that right!

Those papers do give clues to both the known importance of rotational
acceleration and current science's vague understanding of the detail
mechanics of concussions. IOW, they know rotational accelerations cause
more brain damage than linear accelerations. They don't know exactly why.

But again, the papers are essentially theoretical laboratory or
simulation studies. One calculates hypothetical changes in brain injury
risk using a formula provided by another researcher, but then admits the
results of those calculations are to be taken with many grains of salt.
So far there is no clinical data indicating real extra benefit from
these fancier helmets.

When looking at this issue using a wider lens, my question is always
this: Why so much scientific effort directed toward _bicycle_ helmets?
Any unbiased look at sources of serious TBI shows that bicycling is far
down the list of causes. Bicycling doesn't even make most lists of
causes of TBI fatalities.

But in certain circles, pointing that out is heresy. Helmeteers start
with the dogma that all bicycling is very dangerous. Any reference to
its low relative risk is scorned and mocked.

We can stipulate that you made all your usual helmet arguments and that I made all my usual helmet arguments. Please signify your acceptance of this stipulation by signing in the space provided below and returning this letter to me in the enclosed, self-addressed stamped envelope.

Sincerely, Jay Beattie.


______________________________
Frank Krygowski

August______, 2020.


Sure, we could stipulate that. But:

A) nobody will admit that what I say is correct;
B) almost nobody will even bother to look up the numbers;
C) almost everybody will still say (or think) "It's a really, really bad
idea to ride a bike without a helmet."

All that is true even of those who disparage Tom's
know-nothing-but-know-it-all attitudes, i.e. his refusal to examine
facts that may differ from his opinions.

They recognize Tom for what he is, but they imitate him on helmet issues.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/27/2020 5:32 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:05:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/27/2020 1:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 8:31:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:29:34 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:45:58 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 8/26/2020 3:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

BTW, your statement that "For reasons known only to them they decided that rotational forces were causing concussion" is bizarre because, as Frank will educate you, rotational forces are what account for many concussions. Whip lash will give you a concussion without even hitting your head. Your concussions were caused by your brain sloshing around inside your skull unless you had a focal injury like a skull fracture. Frank's whole point has been that rotational injury is not reduced by wearing a helmet, which is basically true except now with MIPS -- or previously with a sloppy fitting helmet. MIPS came along because helmets were not doing much to reduce concussions resulting from rotational injury, but I'm sure you know that.

Helmet prices have gone up due to MIPS.

At Costco, the MIPS version of the Freetown helmet is $30, while the
non-MIPS version (no longer sold) was only $20. That's a 50% increase in
price for MIPS. The online Costco price of the same MIPS helmet is $40
https://www.costco.com/freetown-gear-%2526-gravel-lumiere-mips-helmet.product.100587455.html.
It would be a happy day if I could get a MIPS helmet for the equivalent of 40 American dollars. The last helmet I bought cost over 70 Euro, most of which was unproductive state loadings of some kind, 23pc for sales tax (VAT) alone.

Andre Jute
VAT = Value Added Tax -- don't make me laugh!
Frank, as usual makes another bizarre statement based upon total ignorance of the mechanics of a concussion. Just as concussions for football players were caused by linear head butts, serious concussions to bicyclist have rotations forces strictly as a happenstance and it it the linear blow of a head under the forces of gravity that cause concussions and not the slight twisting motion of the head swiveling on its neck away from that collision. What we need more of is Jay showing us his great knowledge of concussions by showing us the resume of one of his witnesses.


I don't know why I bother. You won't read it...

You've got that right!

Those papers do give clues to both the known importance of rotational
acceleration and current science's vague understanding of the detail
mechanics of concussions. IOW, they know rotational accelerations cause
more brain damage than linear accelerations. They don't know exactly why.

But again, the papers are essentially theoretical laboratory or
simulation studies. One calculates hypothetical changes in brain injury
risk using a formula provided by another researcher, but then admits the
results of those calculations are to be taken with many grains of salt.
So far there is no clinical data indicating real extra benefit from
these fancier helmets.

When looking at this issue using a wider lens, my question is always
this: Why so much scientific effort directed toward _bicycle_ helmets?
Any unbiased look at sources of serious TBI shows that bicycling is far
down the list of causes. Bicycling doesn't even make most lists of
causes of TBI fatalities.

But in certain circles, pointing that out is heresy. Helmeteers start
with the dogma that all bicycling is very dangerous. Any reference to
its low relative risk is scorned and mocked.

But Frank, it isn't just bicycle riding that is dangerous. Practically
everything you do is fraught with peril. They even have helmets for
toddlers.

It is a big, wide, terrible, dangerous, world out there.


That's true. And yet all these men lived:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPrHj1nPt0

You (not just you Mr Slocomb, but rather y'all) can buy
similar levels of head protection any time you like.

Lighter, smaller, more aero, cooler (both venting and
fashion) helmets designed for selling to bicyclists will
necessarily offer some lesser level of protection. Which
makes all this very much an individual decision.

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

jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 1:05:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2020 1:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 8:31:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:29:34 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:45:58 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 8/26/2020 3:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

BTW, your statement that "For reasons known only to them they
decided that rotational forces were causing concussion" is bizarre
because, as Frank will educate you, rotational forces are what
account for many concussions. Whip lash will give you a concussion
without even hitting your head. Your concussions were caused by
your brain sloshing around inside your skull unless you had a focal
injury like a skull fracture. Frank's whole point has been that
rotational injury is not reduced by wearing a helmet, which is
basically true except now with MIPS -- or previously with a sloppy
fitting helmet. MIPS came along because helmets were not doing much
to reduce concussions resulting from rotational injury, but I'm sure you know that.

Helmet prices have gone up due to MIPS.

At Costco, the MIPS version of the Freetown helmet is $30, while the
non-MIPS version (no longer sold) was only $20. That's a 50% increase in
price for MIPS. The online Costco price of the same MIPS helmet is $40
https://www.costco.com/freetown-gear-%2526-gravel-lumiere-mips-helmet.product.100587455.html.
It would be a happy day if I could get a MIPS helmet for the
equivalent of 40 American dollars. The last helmet I bought cost over
70 Euro, most of which was unproductive state loadings of some kind,
23pc for sales tax (VAT) alone.

Andre Jute
VAT = Value Added Tax -- don't make me laugh!
Frank, as usual makes another bizarre statement based upon total
ignorance of the mechanics of a concussion. Just as concussions for
football players were caused by linear head butts, serious concussions
to bicyclist have rotations forces strictly as a happenstance and it
it the linear blow of a head under the forces of gravity that cause
concussions and not the slight twisting motion of the head swiveling
on its neck away from that collision. What we need more of is Jay
showing us his great knowledge of concussions by showing us the resume
of one of his witnesses.


I don't know why I bother. You won't read it...

You've got that right!

Those papers do give clues to both the known importance of rotational
acceleration and current science's vague understanding of the detail
mechanics of concussions. IOW, they know rotational accelerations cause
more brain damage than linear accelerations. They don't know exactly why.

But again, the papers are essentially theoretical laboratory or
simulation studies. One calculates hypothetical changes in brain injury
risk using a formula provided by another researcher, but then admits the
results of those calculations are to be taken with many grains of salt.
So far there is no clinical data indicating real extra benefit from
these fancier helmets.

When looking at this issue using a wider lens, my question is always
this: Why so much scientific effort directed toward _bicycle_ helmets?
Any unbiased look at sources of serious TBI shows that bicycling is far
down the list of causes. Bicycling doesn't even make most lists of
causes of TBI fatalities.

But in certain circles, pointing that out is heresy. Helmeteers start
with the dogma that all bicycling is very dangerous. Any reference to
its low relative risk is scorned and mocked.

We can stipulate that you made all your usual helmet arguments and that I
made all my usual helmet arguments. Please signify your acceptance of
this stipulation by signing in the space provided below and returning
this letter to me in the enclosed, self-addressed stamped envelope.

Sincerely, Jay Beattie.


______________________________
Frank Krygowski

August______, 2020.


We should just assign numbers to the 100 most popular opinions/positions
here on r.b.t. That would save a lot of time and bandwidth.

7
5!
23
PS: Asshole!!!

A new prisoner was assigned to a cell. On the way, he heard one prisoner
say: “110!� The other prisoners laughed really hard.

Then another prisoner said: “93!� The prisoners laughed again.

When he arrived at his cell, out of curiosity he asked his cell mate why
the other prisoners said numbers then everybody laughed.

His cell mate explained that the prisoners have heard plenty of jokes over
and over again, so they decided to number them to make retelling them
really easy.

Just after that, the new guy shouted loudly: “153!�
The whole cell block laughed extremely hard, until tears came down from
their eyes. His cell mate replied: “Hilarious mate! We’ve never heard of
that one before!�

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 05:32:53 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

They even have helmets for
toddlers.

The seventeenty-century pudding cap looked rather like a Skid Lid.

Perhaps it inspired the leather hairnet.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On 8/27/2020 8:34 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 05:32:53 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

They even have helmets for
toddlers.

The seventeenty-century pudding cap looked rather like a Skid Lid.

Perhaps it inspired the leather hairnet.


Thanks I had never heard of that befo

http://www.sew18thcentury.com/2012/01/pudding-prep.html

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

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:53:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/27/2020 5:32 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:05:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/27/2020 1:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 8:31:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:29:34 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:45:58 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 8/26/2020 3:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

BTW, your statement that "For reasons known only to them they decided that rotational forces were causing concussion" is bizarre because, as Frank will educate you, rotational forces are what account for many concussions. Whip lash will give you a concussion without even hitting your head. Your concussions were caused by your brain sloshing around inside your skull unless you had a focal injury like a skull fracture. Frank's whole point has been that rotational injury is not reduced by wearing a helmet, which is basically true except now with MIPS -- or previously with a sloppy fitting helmet. MIPS came along because helmets were not doing much to reduce concussions resulting from rotational injury, but I'm sure you know that.

Helmet prices have gone up due to MIPS.

At Costco, the MIPS version of the Freetown helmet is $30, while the
non-MIPS version (no longer sold) was only $20. That's a 50% increase in
price for MIPS. The online Costco price of the same MIPS helmet is $40
https://www.costco.com/freetown-gear-%2526-gravel-lumiere-mips-helmet.product.100587455.html.
It would be a happy day if I could get a MIPS helmet for the equivalent of 40 American dollars. The last helmet I bought cost over 70 Euro, most of which was unproductive state loadings of some kind, 23pc for sales tax (VAT) alone.

Andre Jute
VAT = Value Added Tax -- don't make me laugh!
Frank, as usual makes another bizarre statement based upon total ignorance of the mechanics of a concussion. Just as concussions for football players were caused by linear head butts, serious concussions to bicyclist have rotations forces strictly as a happenstance and it it the linear blow of a head under the forces of gravity that cause concussions and not the slight twisting motion of the head swiveling on its neck away from that collision. What we need more of is Jay showing us his great knowledge of concussions by showing us the resume of one of his witnesses.


I don't know why I bother. You won't read it...

You've got that right!

Those papers do give clues to both the known importance of rotational
acceleration and current science's vague understanding of the detail
mechanics of concussions. IOW, they know rotational accelerations cause
more brain damage than linear accelerations. They don't know exactly why.

But again, the papers are essentially theoretical laboratory or
simulation studies. One calculates hypothetical changes in brain injury
risk using a formula provided by another researcher, but then admits the
results of those calculations are to be taken with many grains of salt.
So far there is no clinical data indicating real extra benefit from
these fancier helmets.

When looking at this issue using a wider lens, my question is always
this: Why so much scientific effort directed toward _bicycle_ helmets?
Any unbiased look at sources of serious TBI shows that bicycling is far
down the list of causes. Bicycling doesn't even make most lists of
causes of TBI fatalities.

But in certain circles, pointing that out is heresy. Helmeteers start
with the dogma that all bicycling is very dangerous. Any reference to
its low relative risk is scorned and mocked.

But Frank, it isn't just bicycle riding that is dangerous. Practically
everything you do is fraught with peril. They even have helmets for
toddlers.

It is a big, wide, terrible, dangerous, world out there.


That's true. And yet all these men lived:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPrHj1nPt0

You (not just you Mr Slocomb, but rather y'all) can buy
similar levels of head protection any time you like.

Lighter, smaller, more aero, cooler (both venting and
fashion) helmets designed for selling to bicyclists will
necessarily offer some lesser level of protection. Which
makes all this very much an individual decision.

Well, your video was just fine but...
The first 13 riders in the 2020 Austrian GP all averaged over 180 kph
during the race, or in U.S. terms about 111 mph, with rather
significant amount of padding and protection.

How does this relate to the average guy on the bicycle thundering down
the road at an average speed of 10, maybe 15, mph?
--
Cheers,

John B.