Another Helmet Thread

On Jun 20, 1:01*pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


That last comment is *EXACTLY* what Frank posted when I fell and my head *SLAMMED* against the pavement. He stated that had I not been wearing a helmet my head would not have hit the pavement.

Cheers

Again, let's have a direct quote of what I said. Dan posted a link to
what he described as our first disagreement. In that one, my
statements were by no means offensive. I merely said that sidewalk
bike paths were shown to be more dangerous than roads, and that
helmeted cyclists seem to hit their heads more frequently than
unhelmeted cyclists.

Dan took great offense at two mild observations. I suspect you did
the same. But until you give accurate quotes, we won't know, will we?

- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 20, 10:17 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


Dan posted a link to
what he described as our first disagreement.

I described it as my "introduction to Frank" - no mention of any
disagreement (just of your discounting and fault finding). (Do I
need to post a link to the post where I posted a link?)

In that one, my
statements were by no means offensive.

You said, of my riding on a multi-use path, "I think I'd count that
as a serious mistake."

I merely said that sidewalk
bike paths were shown to be more dangerous than roads,

You said, of the MUP (what I had termed a "combination sidewalk / bike
lane (adjacent to a school)"), "an atrocious design."

(... then re-iterated my mistake.)

... and that
helmeted cyclists seem to hit their heads more frequently than
unhelmeted cyclists.


It was pure and simple smarmy discounting.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...8a56d85b?hl=en

.... and that was only the beginning. It got much, much worse. (Holy
smokes have I been engaged thus for _five years_? Surely enough must be
enough.)

Dan took great offense at two mild observations.

Not just me. It's a pattern with you that precedes our introduction.
I've certainly tried to help you with that.

I suspect you did
the same. But until you give accurate quotes, we won't know, will we?


We know. And the accurate quotes don't seem to have any effect on your
invincible skull. I suspect some kind of profound rationalization
framework.

Enough is enough. Good night. And in case I don't see you, good
good afternoon, good evening, and Ride Bike!

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:49:38 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:
Dan considered Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:43:19

-0700 the perfect time to write:



On Jun 20, 10:17 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



snip





Dan posted a link to

what he described as our first disagreement.



I described it as my "introduction to Frank" - no mention of any

disagreement (just of your discounting and fault finding). (Do I

need to post a link to the post where I posted a link?)



In that one, my

statements were by no means offensive.



You said, of my riding on a multi-use path, "I think I'd count that

as a serious mistake."



Ahhh, didumms.

Did the nasty Frank upset your delicate sensibilities by pointing out

that there may be safer ways to achieve your objective.

Still, I'm sure you'll get your butler, or your mummy, or you mummy's

butler, to write and tell him that you are perfect and that even the

merest hint that you may, just possibly, be a little misguided, is

something that you won't put up with, and you'll thcweam and thcweam

until your thick" if it's ever repeated.



I merely said that sidewalk

bike paths were shown to be more dangerous than roads,



You said, of the MUP (what I had termed a "combination sidewalk / bike

lane (adjacent to a school)"), "an atrocious design."



(... then re-iterated my mistake.)



... and that

helmeted cyclists seem to hit their heads more frequently than

unhelmeted cyclists.





It was pure and simple smarmy discounting.



http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...8a56d85b?hl=en



... and that was only the beginning. It got much, much worse. (Holy

smokes have I been engaged thus for _five years_? Surely enough must be

enough.)



If you can't stand the heat. . .



Dan took great offense at two mild observations.



Not just me. It's a pattern with you that precedes our introduction.

I've certainly tried to help you with that.



I suspect you did

the same. But until you give accurate quotes, we won't know, will we?





We know. And the accurate quotes don't seem to have any effect on your

invincible skull. I suspect some kind of profound rationalization

framework.



Enough is enough. Good night. And in case I don't see you, good

good afternoon, good evening, and Ride Bike!



This must be a forgery.



It doesn't tell Frank "**** you" even once.



Maybe it's his mummy's butler?

I certainly hope we continue having these helmet threads, if only to keep me up to date on British slang terms and idioms. "Mummy" and "butler" are terms rarely heard here in Ory-gun. In Dan's part of the world, the last butler was probably a slave brought across the Oregon trail from Missouri.

http://tinyurl.com/q3owvdv
http://tinyurl.com/ojld9rf

Dan commutes 20+ miles each way to work, and his commute terminates in a busy city. I would think by now he has a pretty good idea of what works best for him, both in terms of safety equipment and route. Being second guessed by know-nothings would anger me, too.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/21/2013 9:21 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

I certainly hope we continue having these helmet threads, if only to keep me up to date on British slang terms and idioms. "Mummy" and "butler" are terms rarely heard here in Ory-gun. In Dan's part of the world, the last butler was probably a slave brought across the Oregon trail from Missouri.

http://tinyurl.com/q3owvdv
http://tinyurl.com/ojld9rf

Dan commutes 20+ miles each way to work, and his commute terminates in a busy city. I would think by now he has a pretty good idea of what works best for him, both in terms of safety equipment and route. Being second guessed by know-nothings would anger me, too.

If being second-guessed by know-nothings like Frank and Phil makes Dan
(or you) angry then Usenet is a bad place to hang out. Laugh it off and
don't respond in anger.

On 6/21/2013 1:34 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/21/2013 9:21 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

I certainly hope we continue having these helmet threads, if only to
keep me up to date on British slang terms and idioms. "Mummy" and
"butler" are terms rarely heard here in Ory-gun. In Dan's part of the
world, the last butler was probably a slave brought across the Oregon
trail from Missouri.

http://tinyurl.com/q3owvdv
http://tinyurl.com/ojld9rf

Dan commutes 20+ miles each way to work, and his commute terminates in
a busy city. I would think by now he has a pretty good idea of what
works best for him, both in terms of safety equipment and route. Being
second guessed by know-nothings would anger me, too.

If being second-guessed by know-nothings like Frank and Phil makes Dan
(or you) angry then Usenet is a bad place to hang out. Laugh it off and
don't respond in anger.

What's wrong with responding in anger?

On 6/21/2013 10:42 AM, Duane wrote:

What's wrong with responding in anger?

It's the response that the know-nothings want. They don't want to debate
based on facts, they want to make outrageous and false statements and
then see a bunch of people react angrily.

Responding calmly, with referenced facts, is the preferred response
because instead of you getting angry, the know-nothing gets angry.

One of the latest studies, out of Australia:

"Our findings confirm that bicycle helmets certified to AS/NZS 2063 do
indeed work as intended and are effective in reducing linear and angular
head accelerations, as well as impact force...These results directly
counter unsupported claims to the contrary by some anti-helmet cycling
campaigners."

University of New South Wales: "Helmet crash tests: Don't hit the road
without one"
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/helmet-crash-tests-dont-hit-road-without-one

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:43:19 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:17 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



snip





Dan posted a link to

what he described as our first disagreement.



I described it as my "introduction to Frank" - no mention of any

disagreement (just of your discounting and fault finding). (Do I

need to post a link to the post where I posted a link?)



In that one, my

statements were by no means offensive.



You said, of my riding on a multi-use path, "I think I'd count that

as a serious mistake."



I merely said that sidewalk

bike paths were shown to be more dangerous than roads,



You said, of the MUP (what I had termed a "combination sidewalk / bike

lane (adjacent to a school)"), "an atrocious design."



(... then re-iterated my mistake.)



... and that

helmeted cyclists seem to hit their heads more frequently than

unhelmeted cyclists.





It was pure and simple smarmy discounting.



http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...8a56d85b?hl=en



... and that was only the beginning. It got much, much worse. (Holy

smokes have I been engaged thus for _five years_? Surely enough must be

enough.)



Dan took great offense at two mild observations.



Not just me. It's a pattern with you that precedes our introduction.

I've certainly tried to help you with that.



I suspect you did

the same. But until you give accurate quotes, we won't know, will we?





We know. And the accurate quotes don't seem to have any effect on your

invincible skull. I suspect some kind of profound rationalization

framework.



Enough is enough. Good night. And in case I don't see you, good

good afternoon, good evening, and Ride Bike!

Dan, nothing I said was rude. A sidewalk bike path is a design specifically NOT recommended by AASHTO, for very good and well described reasons.

How politically correct do we have to be? Are we not allowed to mention facts? Has it really gotten to the point that we can't say a bad design is bad?

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:43:19 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:17 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...8a56d85b?hl=en

Dan took great offense at two mild observations.

(Three, actually - one of them twice.)


Not just me. It's a pattern with you that precedes our introduction.

I've certainly tried to help you with that.


snip

Enough is enough. Good night. And in case I don't see you, good
good afternoon, good evening, and Ride Bike!

Dan, nothing I said was rude.

**** you.

snip

writes:

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:43:19 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:17 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

In that one, my
statements were by no means offensive.

You said, of my riding on a multi-use path, "I think I'd count that
as a serious mistake."

I merely said that sidewalk
bike paths were shown to be more dangerous than roads,

You said, of the MUP (what I had termed a "combination sidewalk / bike
lane (adjacent to a school)"), "an atrocious design."

(... then re-iterated my mistake.)


snip


Dan, nothing I said was rude. A sidewalk bike path is a design specifically NOT recommended by AASHTO, for very good and well described reasons.

How politically correct do we have to be? Are we not allowed to mention facts? Has it really gotten to the point that we can't say a bad design is bad?


https://groups.google.com/forum/mess...8/2rgSv0lFUsEJ

I made (at least) two mistakes; neither of which was riding on that path:

1) I didn't adequately consider the fact that the driver would not be
expecting anyone to be on that path at that time (well outside school
hours - maybe it was even summer), and transportation bicycling was
uncommon enough to compound this (since then the city has gained an
enviable mode share - exceeding that of Portland). I intuitively knew
that he probably wouldn't be looking for me, but...

2) I "took" my right-of-way. I *had* the right-of-way (his insurance
company didn't balk in the least or even suggest comparative fault), but
knew and disregarded the fact that physics trump the rules of men.
Brash, arrogant, (lucky), invincible youth.

But the main point in that introductory encounter was my anecdote
implying that the helmet was worthwhile, and Frank's standard, mind-
blowingly nutty, discounting of that simple, common sense and borne
out by data, truth, because it's inconvenient to his zealous agenda.

Phil W Lee writes:

sms considered Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:53:54
-0700 the perfect time to write:


snip

University of New South Wales: "Helmet crash tests: Don't hit the road
without one"
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/helmet-crash-tests-dont-hit-road-without-one

More bull**** predicated on the theory that helmeted and non-helmeted
riders have identical head impacts.
It's dishonest, and they know it. That's why they vilify the
scientists that use real life data to prove them wrong.
Yet more policy based evidence making.

Yawn.

"Real life". That's funny :-)