Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:37:49 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

The second point is that removing road signs, in line with Hans
Monderman's "naked streets" ideas, might make the roads safer.

And after a short time with GPS in the Prius, I have to say that it is
entirely doable in the near future. Don't need the entire map system
display, just a couple of text displays. No problem about reading road
signs at night or worry about missing signs.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:17:21 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:37:49 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

The second point is that removing road signs, in line with Hans
Monderman's "naked streets" ideas, might make the roads safer.

And after a short time with GPS in the Prius, I have to say that it is
entirely doable in the near future. Don't need the entire map system
display, just a couple of text displays. No problem about reading road
signs at night or worry about missing signs.

Uhhh, dude, you know there are people who travel w/o cars sometimes --
like walking or even (gasp) on a bike. Are we supposed to carry a GPS
at all times too?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:36:18 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

Uhhh, dude, you know there are people who travel w/o cars sometimes --
like walking or even (gasp) on a bike. Are we supposed to carry a GPS
at all times too?

JT

Good point. Yes. Need to ask my son to get me a good buy before they
tear down the signs.

I can be a guide for the out-of-towners when I retire, if they have a
GPS with a really big read-out.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:02:08 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
wrote:


Good point. Yes. Need to ask my son to get me a good buy before they
tear down the signs.

I can be a guide for the out-of-towners when I retire, if they have a
GPS with a really big read-out.

I'm going to be a crotchety old guy and just tell them "Can't get
there from here" when I get old.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld :
David Damerell wrote:
Which is all well and good, but doesn't really get us any closer to the
point; I think brakes have a net positive effect on safety, and hence your
original assertion is unjustified.
I'm finished with this thread. I just want to clear up that I never
claimed brakes had no positive effect on safety.

Who said you did? No-one.
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!
Today is First Tuesday, August.

So the important question is - is this the longest running thread on usenet?
Sure seems like it!

Lee

I submit that on or about Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:15:21 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Incredible, isn't it? People should be grateful for your taking time
out of your busy schedule to tell them their experience counts for
nothing, their judgment is worthless and their assessment of the
benefits of different types of system is necessarily wrong!

I don't care about the grateful part, but unfortunately you are often
correct about your next three statements. It's sometimes very difficult
for a person to get beyond, 'I do it this way, I've always done it this
way, I haven't experienced any negative consequences doing it this way,
so my way is obviously a good way.'

We noticed. That is, after all, your usual MO.

As far as the relative merits of the different kinds of lights, I am
certainly not alone, among lighting experts, in stating the safety
benefits of the higher brightness lights, while recognizing the
self-sufficiency and convenience aspects of of dynamo systems (I do own
some dynamo systems).

1. How many of them urge people "not to trust" such systems?

2. Where is your evidence? Comparative per-mile casualty stats would
settle any dispute.

The "Myths and Facts" section at "http://nordicgroup.us/s78/myths.html"
is probably the best place for you to start your quest for knowledge,
once you decide to open your mind.

Ah, so those of us who think all systems are usable need to "open our
minds" in order to accept that only one kind of system is any good.
Silly of me not to notice.

Interestingly, your "myths and facts" presentation in both lights and
helmets pretends that all the errors are on the other side; it's
amusing how tortured you need to make this sometimes in order to make
one of your own worst faults seem as if it's only exhibited by those
who disagree with you! Naturally, since you apparently sincerely
believe that you are one of Earth's greatest experts on everything, it
is inconceivable that your cherished beliefs could be anything less
than Revealed Truth.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I submit that on or about Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:55:56 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement
in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Yesterday I took my kids, and two nieces bicycling in Monterey. I
realized that I had packed everything, except my own helmet. I didn't
know what to do. I thought about those people who are just positive that
risk compensation would rear its ugly head and I was terrified that I
would suddenly begin riding at 2 mph and would have to pull over every
time a car or bicycle approached from the front or rear.
Amazingly, I found that I did not ride any differently with or without a
helmet.

Excellent straw man. As anybody who is even vaguely interested in
risk compensation theory will know, the balancing behaviour exhibited
tends to be subtle. Since crashes tend to be the result not of the
taking of large risks, but of the taking of small risks very large
numbers of times, that is all that's needed.

Barry Pless, editor of Injury Prevention, used to dismiss risk
compensation, as well. He set out to prove it didn't happen.

He was rather surprised when the results of his study showed that risk
compensation theory is exactly correct.

"Risk compensation in children's activities: A pilot study", Mok D,
Gore G, Hagel B, Mok E, Magdalinos H, Pless B. 2004. Paediatr Child
Health: Vol 9 No 5 May/June 2004

Once again you confuse "no evidence with which Scharf agrees" for "no
evidence". A natural consequence of your titanic hubris, I'm afraid.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Per Tom Kunich:
That is to say that accidents in which a motorcyclist is killed from a head
injury alone and in which the head injury therefore sustained could be
mediated by a motorcycle helmet to less than lethal are so rare as to be a
statistical freak. If you read the accident reports and the statistics you
can arrive at no other answer.

Still sounds fishy to me. Perhaps not on a purely technical/legalistic basis -
but I'd guess there are plenty of non-lethal head injuries that cause lasting
damage.

Long time ago, some drunk nailed me on my Yamaha YDS-6 when I was going about 50
mph. I was wearing one of those Bell helmets that come down low on the sides
and the back of the neck, but don't cover the face.

I flew through the air head-first in a sort of swan dive posture, hit the
blacktop face-first, and things deteriorated rapidly from then on.

Cracked the helmet, suspect I wound up putting my dentist's kid through at least
two semesters of college, and saw flashes of light for several days afterwards.

My feeling is that even if that helmet didn't save my life, it probably kept me
from becoming even more of a raving idiot than I am.
--
PeteCresswell

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:17:47 -0400, "Lee" lee_AT_SHOES_wheelman_DOT_com
wrote:

So the important question is - is this the longest running thread on usenet?
Sure seems like it!

Are you kidding? In a mere two or three weeks and a niggling 1000 posts?
Legendary usenet Threads That Would Not Die tend to be in the more than a
year, over 5000 messages ballpark. Under that, don't even bother.


Jasper