helmet

If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
enlighten me.

Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.

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

Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine Nbar Bell and not worn.

I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets left on the rack ?

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:12:03 PM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine Nbar Bell and not worn.



I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets left on the rack ?

are riders owning helmets but not wearing helmets less likely or more likely to suffer head unjuries from cycle accidents than riders not.....whew...owning helmets ?

On 10/25/2012 6:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine Nbar Bell and not worn.

I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets left on the rack ?


Which caused his broken femur or caused the
anaesthesiologist's error resulting in stroke?

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

On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death
in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.

Actually a lot has changed since 1998.

If you recall the "driving helmet" argument, it's even lamer 14 years
later as vehicles now have a lot more safety features.

14 years ago, some people still believed that cycling rates fell if
helmets were either promoted or mandated, now we have solid evidence
that this is not the case.

We've also seen a number of new myths created since 1998. The continuous
myth creation is a necessary activity for those opposed to helmet usage
because as myths are debunked there is a need for new myths to replace them.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:04:58 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
enlighten me.

Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.

Ah gee Andrew, SMS has provided irrefutable evidence, from the EU,
that bicycling is 11.5 times more dangerous then an auto. It appears
logical to eliminate this horrifying danger to mankind by immediately
outlawing these devices.

Write your congressman today!

datakoll writes:

Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident.

Fatal?

--
Joe Riel

AMuzi wrote:
:On 10/25/2012 6:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
: Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine Nbar Bell and not worn.
:
: I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets left on the rack ?
:

:Which caused his broken femur or caused the
:anaesthesiologist's error resulting in stroke?

Wait, did he die? I mised that, if it's happened.



--
sig 95

enlighten me.



Well, since 1998, we

are not deaf to our doom !

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:59:37 -0700 (PDT), datakoll
wrote:

enlighten me.

One must suffer before enlightenment.

Well, since 1998, we

are not deaf to our doom !

The speed of sound is much slower than the speed of electromagnetic
radiation and sub-atomic particles. It is unlikely that you'll hear
anything after you are barbequed, irradiated, or zapped as you will
already have met your doom. However, a bicycle helmet might be
useful, should you survive, to reduce damage when the monuments of
civilization fall on your head on Dec 21, 2012:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558