Helmet Nazis at It Again!

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:17:40 -0500, "Roger Houston"
wrote:


"Bill Baka" wrote in message
. ..
The major part of his liver fell in the exact middle of their cloth. His
head, unhurt, was about 50 feet away, without a helmet.

You are SO full of ****.


What do you expect? Poor macho Billy has never resolved the anger of
finding out his Dad was a gay pal of Truman Capote.

wrote in
ups.com:

Roger Houston wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Liberal Nazis.

Only in America...

You imply that Nazis are not liberal, hence they are conservative.
But Nazis were socialists (with some additional sick ideas). Hardly
a conservative ideology.

Hardly liberal, either, eh?

I didn't mean to suggest nazism was liberal. It's just interesting how
liberals often draw parallels between nazism and modern conservatism,
despite the fact that nazism had a leftist socialist agenda (aside
from the other sick ideas that were neither left nor right).

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the
world into two kinds of people, and those who don't.

I like that. ;-)

Joseph



Nazi's were socialist in name only, something which reading some of the
better histories of this era will make QUITE clear. When someone like
Strasser et al. tried to actually implement some of the 'socialist'
principles (e.g., taking over department stores as oppressors of the
small shop owners), the roof fell on them as the Nazi Party was becoming
more and more frightfully dependant on the kindness of industrialists.

The Nazis also stood in DIRECT opposition to the socialist and communist
parties of their millieu. That is SIMILARLY clear in any competent
history.

Furthermore, the Nazis had NO socialist nor any left-wing agenda after
the Fuhrer Prinzip was implemented, only the will of Hitler.

Maybe the reason you think others are confused is because you haven't
done your history?

Roger Houston wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message
.. .
The major part of his liver fell in the exact middle of their cloth. His
head, unhurt, was about 50 feet away, without a helmet.

You are SO full of ****.


It happened, so if you want to waste the time trying to find it be my
guest. Like I said, it was by the Santa Cruz, Ca. beach and boardwalk,
which is their main attraction. The train came over a bridge over a
relatively insignificant creek and then ran over the street to a few
industrial points. I think it has been paved over but I haven't been
down there for 25 years. We had the same thing here in my area 'Yuba
City' until some idiot tried to run a left turn light in front of the
train, which was moving slow, but still got the car and mangled it
before stopping.
Bill Baka

On 15 Sep 2006 18:33:12 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Two years ago my father, now 80 was riding. He ducked under a bunch of
branches,
stuck his head up, and there was a tree limb.

Without a helmet, he's dead.

Are you sure?

Your father, bless him, in search of the truth went and did the same
thing without a helmet, and died?

On 16 Sep 2006 04:25:25 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On 15 Sep 2006 18:33:12 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Two years ago my father, now 80 was riding. He ducked under a bunch of
branches,
stuck his head up, and there was a tree limb.

Without a helmet, he's dead.

Maybe. Maybe not. You'll never know now.
--

If you saw the helmet, there'd be little doubt.

I don't think adults should be required to wear helmets, I don't
always. But it's incredilby
stupid not to.

Why so?

Massive population-level studies show no positive effect from helmet
wearing.

Why spend money on something that doesn't work?

Beach Runner wrote:
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On 15 Sep 2006 18:33:12 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:

Without a helmet, he's dead.

Maybe. Maybe not. You'll never know now.

If you saw the helmet, there'd be little doubt.

We're familiar with the logic: "A very fragile styrofoam hat broke.
Therefore, a fatality was prevented."

The proponents of this "logic" don't seem to realize the number of
broken helmets totally eclipse the number of pre-helmet bike
fatalities. Bike fatalities are actually extremely rare. (They're
roughly equaled by the number of poison gas fatalities in the US each
year. Should we "Always wear a gas mask when cooking"?)

I don't think adults should be required to wear helmets, I don't
always. But it's incredilby stupid not to.

That's a strongly stated opinion, even if you voluntarily included
yourself in the "stupid" crowd. Others might reserve the word "stupid"
for people who disparage others' views without bothering to learn as
much as their opponents.

If you look into the real-world data, you'd find that bicycling is NOT
an unusual source of serious head injuries. Pedestrian head injury
fatalities are much more common, both in total and per mile. Bike head
injury fatalities are less than 1% of the HI fatalities in the US.
(Riding in cars causes about half.)

And the actual performance of these fragile hats is terrible. In fact,
helmet proponents have almost probably done net harm by scaring people
away from cycling; they certainly haven't prevented a significant
number of head injuries. See
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b63eec01188.htm for one discussion
of this.

Visit www.cyclehelmets.org and at least learn that there are two sides
to this question. Then stop acting as a shill for the helmet
manufacturers.

- Frank Krygowski

Tom Keats wrote:
In article .com,
"Pat" writes:

As an aside, many helmets are not used correctly and therefore have
their safety compromized. They are really "one use" items. If you
bonk your head or even drop the helmet, its time for a new one.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm curious -- what happens to the styrofoam if a helmet is dropped on
the floor from, say, handlebar height? How /exactly/ does it fracture
or fail?

FWIW, I believe the "drop it, replace it" rule of thumb is a figment of
people's imaginations. I'm not aware of any helmet company saying
that. (Granted, some dedicated helmet promoters may have said that -
but they tend to be a trifle irrational.)

Dropping an "empty" helmet is unlikely to compress the foam. The mass
of the helmet isn't significant, so the force to decelerate it isn't
significant. That force is insufficent to compress the foam.

Admittedly, I've seen helmets crack their "microshell" upon being
dropped. But that's almost entirely cosmetic. And it wouldn't
surprise me if a manufacturer purposely chose a brittle, UV-degradeable
plastic for the microshell to promote such cracking and thus more
sales. (Current microshells look like brittle styrene, or other
vacuum-formable thermoplastics; they're certainly not fiberglass.)

The real rule of thumb is, if you've damaged it in a crash, replace it.
That's because the styrofoam doesn't bounce back all the way when
crushed. If you had a second crash impacting exactly the same spot in
your helmet, your level of protection would drop from "barely protects
against a 14 mph impact" (the current standard) to "barely protects
against a 9 mph impact." And of course, a protection level _that_ low
would never do! ;-)

And if currently available helmets are so fragile, what good
are they?

That's a separate question, best answeable by looking at head injury
data when helmet rates suddenly rise in a given population. The answer
is: not much good at all. They're an ineffective solution to a largely
imaginary problem.


And why do mfg'rs use styrofoam instead of puffy foam rubber such as is
used in anti-decubitus pads, or some other lightweight shock-absorbing
material that's better able to withstand the rigours of being handled
by butter-fingered humans in the course of daily use?

Styrofoam (or expanded polystyrene) does do a much better job of
absorbing impact than most other inexpensive materials. And it's
light, which appeals to the play-racer, weight-weenie crowd. And it's
inexpensive to manufacture. And if someone does, say, sit on their
helmet and crack it, it generates another sale.

Having said that, in the paleo-helmet days of the 1970s, there was a
small manufacturer going head-to-head (so to speak) with Bell. They
were called Skid-Lid, they featured a Lexan outer shell (IIRC) and a
bounce-back, non-sacrificial black foam inner lining. This was before
the first Snell bike helmet standard.

Then Snell came out with a standard, a drop-test for bike helmets.
Interestingly, it was immediately called ludicrously low - but Snell
said "Anything more, and cyclists won't wear them." Amazingly, that
standard was set at a level that the existing Bell product passed, and
the existing Skid-Lid product failed.

Skid-Lid sued, claiming (IIRC) that Bell had collusion in setting the
test level. And interestingly, Skid-Lid produced lots of "My Skid-Lid
saved my life!!!!" stories, of the same sort we see here. But
Skid-Lid was a tiny operation, and they lost to the wealthy Bell.

So now your helmet is designed to self-destruct.

- Frank Krygowski

wvantwiller wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

Roger Houston wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Liberal Nazis.

Only in America...

You imply that Nazis are not liberal, hence they are conservative.
But Nazis were socialists (with some additional sick ideas). Hardly
a conservative ideology.

Hardly liberal, either, eh?

I didn't mean to suggest nazism was liberal. It's just interesting how
liberals often draw parallels between nazism and modern conservatism,
despite the fact that nazism had a leftist socialist agenda (aside
from the other sick ideas that were neither left nor right).

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the
world into two kinds of people, and those who don't.

I like that. ;-)

Joseph



Nazi's were socialist in name only, something which reading some of the
better histories of this era will make QUITE clear. When someone like
Strasser et al. tried to actually implement some of the 'socialist'
principles (e.g., taking over department stores as oppressors of the
small shop owners), the roof fell on them as the Nazi Party was becoming
more and more frightfully dependant on the kindness of industrialists.

The Nazis also stood in DIRECT opposition to the socialist and communist
parties of their millieu. That is SIMILARLY clear in any competent
history.

Furthermore, the Nazis had NO socialist nor any left-wing agenda after
the Fuhrer Prinzip was implemented, only the will of Hitler.

Maybe the reason you think others are confused is because you haven't
done your history?

My point is that nazism is often inappropriately compared by liberals
to modern conservatism. The sick nazi ideas have no relation to modern
conservatism (nor modern liberalism), and indeed the later nazi program
which was as you say was just the will of Hitler had no real socialist
ideas either. But the nazis were based initially on a leftist agenda.

Joseph

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:


That doesn't work very well when you live, as I do, in a
MHL zone and the person you tell to f____ off is the cop
writing you a no-helmet ticket.

Did you write to your elected representative before your MHL law was
passed? I did in California, pointing out that we had adults in town
who road very short distances to a train station to commute to work
and that their commute was safer than driving regardless of whether
they used a helmet or not because most of the distance was by train,
the safest mode of transportation. I also pointed out bike locker
shortages and vandalism problems at the train stations, making leaving
a helmet with the bike problematic. Eventually a MHL was passed but
it only applied to those too young to drive.

Nobody is claiming that helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

Lots of people are.

Not so - I presume you mean people on this newsgroup, not some
reporter filling space in some newspaper article.


Acme Bicycle Safety Course

1) Always wear a helmet while riding, so drivers won't feel
so badly when they hit you

"Acme Bicycle Safety Course" does not post on this newsgroup
and the "points" you provide suggest that you simply made it
all up - hardly a way of developing any credibility.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Followups trimmed to only groups that have "bicycle" in them.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:17:40 -0500, Roger Houston wrote:


"Bill Baka" wrote in message
.. .
The major part of his liver fell in the exact middle of their cloth. His
head, unhurt, was about 50 feet away, without a helmet.

You are SO full of ****.

So plonk him. If everyone who can't stand the BS he spouts plonks him,
then it will be as if he weren't even here. Your own S/N ratio view of
r.b.m will increase, even if the actual S/N ratio of r.b.m does not.

--
Chris BeHanna


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----