A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old August 5th 19, 03:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On 8/5/2019 4:07 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 00:13:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 8:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:


Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000? What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a danger.


Yes, nobody much objects to long guns in the woods here. But "can't
legally carry a pistol in a pocket"? Some here would say that's akin to
slicing off a man's ... um, masculinity. (And it's true that some men
seem to confuse their guns with their genital organs.)

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.


Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

But you don't think the differences in gun laws are a factor?

I was pointing out that the table I saw was based on UNODC rates.

But I'm not sure whether gun laws, specifically, are really a factor
in Thai homicide rates. Certainly the news is full of knife, club,
whatever, (even by hand), murders and illegal ownership of firearms is
extremely common so I'm not sure what effect the rather strict gun
laws in Thailand have on homicide rates.

As an aside I might mention that the CDC homicide numbers in the U.S.
seem to be all - homicides - 19,510, Firearms - 14,542 so about 75% of
homicides in the U.S. age gun related. But!

According to the Centers for Disease Control, using data available for
analysis on September 5, 2018, there were a reported 70,652 deaths
attributed to drug overdose in the US for the year ending December
2017. Some deaths were still under investigation. The CDC projects
that the total for 2017 will be 72,222.

It makes the 14,542 gun deaths seem a bit.... well one might say
somewhat less than urgent :-)

According to Statistia some 43% of U.S. households owned one or more
guns in 2017. That is (I believe) some 126,220,000 households with
guns and 14,000 gun deaths (not, I believe, including self inflected
death) or a rate of 1 gun death per 9,015.7 households.

And Auto Deaths? Some 37,133 deaths in 2017 - the same year as the
14,000 gun deaths. Or one traffic death per 3,399 families.

But than, we all know that they are "traffic accidents", which seem to
be acceptable and "GUN DEATHS!" which are horrifying.


We just had two mass murders within about half a day, one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.


You seem to be sidestepping my question. How often _does_ that happen
where you live?


Well, I gave you the figures, about 61% of the U.S. numbers.


No, John, you didn't give me the numbers I asked for. Nice try at
sidestepping, though.

Here was my question: "We just had two mass murders within about half a
day, one in Texas, the next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you
live?" And I repeated: "How often _does_ that happen where you live?"

I'm not surprised you have occasional killings using knives, clubs and
hands, as you describe. But how many _mass_ killings? How many instances
of a guy with a knife quickly slaying, say, 20 people who were shopping
and injuring a couple dozen more?


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #62  
Old August 5th 19, 05:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On 8/5/2019 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 4:07 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 00:13:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 8:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:


Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns
kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the
country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000?
What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws
working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are
banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol
in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a
shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a
danger.

Yes, nobody much objects to long guns in the woods here.
But "can't
legally carry a pistol in a pocket"? Some here would say
that's akin to
slicing off a man's ... um, masculinity. (And it's true
that some men
seem to confuse their guns with their genital organs.)

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote
them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the
U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to
define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

But you don't think the differences in gun laws are a
factor?

I was pointing out that the table I saw was based on UNODC
rates.

But I'm not sure whether gun laws, specifically, are
really a factor
in Thai homicide rates. Certainly the news is full of
knife, club,
whatever, (even by hand), murders and illegal ownership of
firearms is
extremely common so I'm not sure what effect the rather
strict gun
laws in Thailand have on homicide rates.

As an aside I might mention that the CDC homicide numbers
in the U.S.
seem to be all - homicides - 19,510, Firearms - 14,542 so
about 75% of
homicides in the U.S. age gun related. But!

According to the Centers for Disease Control, using data
available for
analysis on September 5, 2018, there were a reported
70,652 deaths
attributed to drug overdose in the US for the year ending
December
2017. Some deaths were still under investigation. The CDC
projects
that the total for 2017 will be 72,222.

It makes the 14,542 gun deaths seem a bit.... well one
might say
somewhat less than urgent :-)

According to Statistia some 43% of U.S. households owned
one or more
guns in 2017. That is (I believe) some 126,220,000
households with
guns and 14,000 gun deaths (not, I believe, including self
inflected
death) or a rate of 1 gun death per 9,015.7 households.

And Auto Deaths? Some 37,133 deaths in 2017 - the same
year as the
14,000 gun deaths. Or one traffic death per 3,399 families.

But than, we all know that they are "traffic accidents",
which seem to
be acceptable and "GUN DEATHS!" which are horrifying.


We just had two mass murders within about half a day,
one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns
kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.

You seem to be sidestepping my question. How often _does_
that happen
where you live?


Well, I gave you the figures, about 61% of the U.S. numbers.


No, John, you didn't give me the numbers I asked for. Nice
try at sidestepping, though.

Here was my question: "We just had two mass murders within
about half a day, one in Texas, the next in Ohio. Does that
happen a lot where you live?" And I repeated: "How often
_does_ that happen where you live?"

I'm not surprised you have occasional killings using knives,
clubs and hands, as you describe. But how many _mass_
killings? How many instances of a guy with a knife quickly
slaying, say, 20 people who were shopping and injuring a
couple dozen more?



I don't know from Thailand but in Chicago it's all day every
day:
https://maggionews.com/
https://heyjackass.com/

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


  #63  
Old August 5th 19, 07:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On 8/5/2019 12:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/5/2019 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 4:07 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 00:13:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 8:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:


Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns
kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the
country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000?
What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws
working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are
banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol
in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a
shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife isÂ* a
danger.

Yes, nobody much objects to long guns in the woods here.
But "can't
legally carry a pistol in a pocket"? Some here would say
that's akin to
slicing off a man's ... um, masculinity. (And it's true
that some men
seem to confuse their guns with their genital organs.)

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote
them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the
U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to
defineÂ* murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

But you don't think the differences in gun laws are a
factor?

I was pointing out that the table I saw was based on UNODC
rates.

But I'm not sure whether gun laws, specifically, are
really a factor
in Thai homicide rates. Certainly the news is full of
knife, club,
whatever, (even by hand), murders and illegal ownership of
firearms is
extremely common so I'm not sure what effect the rather
strict gun
laws in Thailand have on homicide rates.

As an aside I might mention that the CDC homicide numbers
in the U.S.
seem to be all - homicides - 19,510, Firearms - 14,542 so
about 75% of
homicides in the U.S. age gun related. But!

According to the Centers for Disease Control, using data
available for
analysis on September 5, 2018, there were a reported
70,652 deaths
attributed to drug overdose in the US for the year ending
December
2017. Some deaths were still under investigation. The CDC
projects
that the total for 2017 will be 72,222.

It makes the 14,542 gun deaths seem a bit.... well one
might say
somewhat less than urgent :-)

According to Statistia some 43% of U.S. households owned
one or more
guns in 2017. That is (I believe) some 126,220,000
households with
guns and 14,000 gun deaths (not, I believe, including self
inflected
death) or a rate of 1 gun death per 9,015.7 households.

And Auto Deaths? Some 37,133 deaths in 2017 - the same
year as the
14,000 gun deaths. Or one traffic death per 3,399 families.

But than, we all know that they are "traffic accidents",
which seem to
be acceptable and "GUN DEATHS!" which are horrifying.


We just had two mass murders within about half a day,
one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns
kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.

You seem to be sidestepping my question. How often _does_
that happen
where you live?

Well, I gave you the figures, about 61% of the U.S. numbers.


No, John, you didn't give me the numbers I asked for. Nice
try at sidestepping, though.

Here was my question: "We just had two mass murders within
about half a day, one in Texas, the next in Ohio. Does that
happen a lot where you live?" And I repeated: "How often
_does_ that happen where you live?"

I'm not surprised you have occasional killings using knives,
clubs and hands, as you describe. But how many _mass_
killings? How many instances of a guy with a knife quickly
slaying, say, 20 people who were shopping and injuring a
couple dozen more?



I don't know from Thailand but in Chicago it's all day every day:
https://maggionews.com/
https://heyjackass.com/


I see very few reports of mass killings using knives.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #64  
Old August 5th 19, 08:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 10:59:41 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2019 7:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:25:38 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:12:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:06:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 2:24:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 7:47:21 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 1:09 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:13:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?

Wrong again Frank. There's no mandatory helmet law where I live.

Really? I thought you lived in Ontario.

From Wikipedia:
"The use of bicycle helmets is compulsory in the provinces of British
Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and
Prince Edward Island.[12] In the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and
Ontario, the use of helmets is mandatory for cyclists under the age of
18 years of age.[13][14][15][16]"

Perhaps you're unaware of the law? If so, perhaps you should read up
before arguing.


Last time I looked this is rec.BICYCLES.tech not rec.pedestrians.tech or
rec.car.tech. Therefore most of us who talk about helmets here are
talking about helmets as they pertain to BICYCLING.

If that's how you feel, you should have taken your "smash a melon"
helmet promoting argument to rec.melons.tech, or some other such newsgroup.

Why are so many people so dedicated to claiming that only _bicyclists_
should (or must) wear helmets, as if bicycling has tremendous brain
injury risk? Do those people not understand the numbers? Or, like the
laws, do those people just not bother to examine them?

--
- Frank Krygowski

I'm over 18 thus there is NO mandatory helmet law for me.

I'm aware of that. But your statement was "There's no mandatory helmet law
where I live." That was clearly false. You should admit it.

There is a MHL in Ontario, but due largely to the efforts of a guy I happen to
correspond with, the law was amended so it doesn't apply to adults.

I'm quite sure that if the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL
would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski

BULL****! Frank. You do NOT know what I think!

The issue isn't so much what you think, Sir. It's what you did - or more
precisely, what you didn't do.

The person I'm alluding to was part of a lobbying group that worked hard against
an adult MHL for Ontario. The bill as originally written mandated helmets for
ALL bicyclists at ALL times, just as do the MHLs in British Columbia, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI etc. The lobbying group in Ontario (largely led
by my friend) managed to convince legislators that adults should be allowed
to gasp! decide for themselves.

Now, Sir, were you part of that group? Did you contact your legislators? What
_did_ you do to allow freedom of choice?

I suspect you did nothing. I suspect that at the time, you were still arguing
ferociously in favor of helmets, using nonsense like "the melon test." IOW, if
the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski


Frank, do you think that you are God that you know what others thousands of miles from you do/did/didn't do/know/think? I've seen so many posts by you where you take exception to events that happened very far from you. Exceptions wherein you stated that the person on the scene was wrong. It must be nice to be omniscient.


Sir, please skip the deflections. When that mandatory helmet law was
being worked on, what _did_ you do to make sure at least adults retained
freedom of choice?

Don't sidestep. If you helped with that effort, tell us what you did. If
you didn't help with that effort, admit it.

If you deflect again without answering, we can certainly assume you did
nothing. It may even be a clue that you actively opposed freedom of choice.

--
- Frank Krygowski


I do NOT have to explain anything to you Frank!

Cheers
  #65  
Old August 5th 19, 08:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 2:58:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:47:26 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 6:21 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
I just got an advertisement from Trek in which they now claim that the latest Wavecell has not 28 times but 48 times the protection for your head than normal foam.

I wonder if this is advertising BS or an actual improvement of the cell shape design. Since they are manufactured using a 3-D printing technology it is very simple for them to make improvements to the design.

At 28 times the protection I wouldn't have had a concussion in the first place so it is actually something to think about. I am paying about $400 a month for medication and in a constant worry that I will grow used to the medication and its effectiveness will fail. I already discovered that if I take these Saw Palmetto pills for enlarged prostate that it makes you pass the medication out more rapidly that you're supposed to and I start having micro-seizures.

I can't take any larger doses so that is always a problem.

I absolutely do not believe that a helmet can save your life and we've discussed this many times before. But I do believe that it can make the life you wouldn't have lost more livable.

Perhaps, for certain values of "can."

Maybe we'll someday see if the Wavecell makes a difference. In that
case, perhaps they can sell it to those that actually has the largest
number of TBI injuries. That surely does not include bicyclists, despite
all the dishonest hype. Ask any honest ER doctor or TBI specialist.

In any case, it's pretty clear conventional bike helmets aren't working.
Cyclist concussions have soared since bike helmets became popular - just
the opposite of what was promised.


--
- Frank Krygowski


Frank, please stop your invention. TBI has not "soared". In fact we have a smaller percentage of injuries and fatalities of bicyclists because they are more familiar to motorists these days and cycling becomes more common..


From "Senseless" in _Bicycling_ magazine, June 2013:

"Stat #3: As more people buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased. Between 1997 and 2011 the number of bike-related concussions suffered annually by American riders Â*increased by 67 percent, from 9,327 to 15,546..."

See http://fliphtml5.com/yilc/ntnn/basic

- Frank Krygowski


Gee, let me see if I have you correctly Frank - during the time that Greg LeMond and Lance Armstrong made the SPORT of bicycling popular there was a large increase in head injuries and it just coincidentally occurred in the age group of 17 to 27. Who in the hell could EVER have predicted that?
  #66  
Old August 5th 19, 08:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On 8/5/2019 1:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 12:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/5/2019 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 4:07 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 00:13:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 8:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:


Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns
kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the
country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000?
What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws
working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are
banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol
in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a
shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a
danger.

Yes, nobody much objects to long guns in the woods here.
But "can't
legally carry a pistol in a pocket"? Some here would say
that's akin to
slicing off a man's ... um, masculinity. (And it's true
that some men
seem to confuse their guns with their genital organs.)

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote
them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the
U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to
define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

But you don't think the differences in gun laws are a
factor?

I was pointing out that the table I saw was based on UNODC
rates.

But I'm not sure whether gun laws, specifically, are
really a factor
in Thai homicide rates. Certainly the news is full of
knife, club,
whatever, (even by hand), murders and illegal ownership of
firearms is
extremely common so I'm not sure what effect the rather
strict gun
laws in Thailand have on homicide rates.

As an aside I might mention that the CDC homicide numbers
in the U.S.
seem to be all - homicides - 19,510, Firearms - 14,542 so
about 75% of
homicides in the U.S. age gun related. But!

According to the Centers for Disease Control, using data
available for
analysis on September 5, 2018, there were a reported
70,652 deaths
attributed to drug overdose in the US for the year ending
December
2017. Some deaths were still under investigation. The CDC
projects
that the total for 2017 will be 72,222.

It makes the 14,542 gun deaths seem a bit.... well one
might say
somewhat less than urgent :-)

According to Statistia some 43% of U.S. households owned
one or more
guns in 2017. That is (I believe) some 126,220,000
households with
guns and 14,000 gun deaths (not, I believe, including self
inflected
death) or a rate of 1 gun death per 9,015.7 households.

And Auto Deaths? Some 37,133 deaths in 2017 - the same
year as the
14,000 gun deaths. Or one traffic death per 3,399 families.

But than, we all know that they are "traffic accidents",
which seem to
be acceptable and "GUN DEATHS!" which are horrifying.


We just had two mass murders within about half a day,
one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns
kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.

You seem to be sidestepping my question. How often _does_
that happen
where you live?

Well, I gave you the figures, about 61% of the U.S.
numbers.

No, John, you didn't give me the numbers I asked for. Nice
try at sidestepping, though.

Here was my question: "We just had two mass murders within
about half a day, one in Texas, the next in Ohio. Does that
happen a lot where you live?" And I repeated: "How often
_does_ that happen where you live?"

I'm not surprised you have occasional killings using knives,
clubs and hands, as you describe. But how many _mass_
killings? How many instances of a guy with a knife quickly
slaying, say, 20 people who were shopping and injuring a
couple dozen more?



I don't know from Thailand but in Chicago it's all day
every day:
https://maggionews.com/
https://heyjackass.com/


I see very few reports of mass killings using knives.


Of course not, we have firearms he
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48050426

http://content.time.com/time/world/a...985834,00.html

People are just people and as I noted in a large nation we
have our share of wackos.

Then again nothing says mass murder like a can of gasoline
and a match

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48050426

What's worse than our idiots with semis? Automatic weapons
in organized attacks then slavery of the survivors. At least
we don't have Boko Haram here. Yet.

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


  #67  
Old August 5th 19, 08:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 3:25:38 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:12:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:06:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 2:24:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 7:47:21 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 1:09 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:13:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?

Wrong again Frank. There's no mandatory helmet law where I live.

Really? I thought you lived in Ontario.

From Wikipedia:
"The use of bicycle helmets is compulsory in the provinces of British
Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and
Prince Edward Island.[12] In the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and
Ontario, the use of helmets is mandatory for cyclists under the age of
18 years of age.[13][14][15][16]"

Perhaps you're unaware of the law? If so, perhaps you should read up
before arguing.


Last time I looked this is rec.BICYCLES.tech not rec.pedestrians.tech or
rec.car.tech. Therefore most of us who talk about helmets here are
talking about helmets as they pertain to BICYCLING.

If that's how you feel, you should have taken your "smash a melon"
helmet promoting argument to rec.melons.tech, or some other such newsgroup.

Why are so many people so dedicated to claiming that only _bicyclists_
should (or must) wear helmets, as if bicycling has tremendous brain
injury risk? Do those people not understand the numbers? Or, like the
laws, do those people just not bother to examine them?

--
- Frank Krygowski

I'm over 18 thus there is NO mandatory helmet law for me.

I'm aware of that. But your statement was "There's no mandatory helmet law
where I live." That was clearly false. You should admit it.

There is a MHL in Ontario, but due largely to the efforts of a guy I happen to
correspond with, the law was amended so it doesn't apply to adults.

I'm quite sure that if the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL
would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski


BULL****! Frank. You do NOT know what I think!


The issue isn't so much what you think, Sir. It's what you did - or more
precisely, what you didn't do.

The person I'm alluding to was part of a lobbying group that worked hard against
an adult MHL for Ontario. The bill as originally written mandated helmets for
ALL bicyclists at ALL times, just as do the MHLs in British Columbia, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI etc. The lobbying group in Ontario (largely led
by my friend) managed to convince legislators that adults should be allowed
to gasp! decide for themselves.

Now, Sir, were you part of that group? Did you contact your legislators? What
_did_ you do to allow freedom of choice?

I suspect you did nothing. I suspect that at the time, you were still arguing
ferociously in favor of helmets, using nonsense like "the melon test." IOW, if
the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski


Frank, if you do not want to wear a helmet that is your business. But your idiotic lying about these things is rather juvenile.
  #68  
Old August 5th 19, 08:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/4/2019 7:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:24:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:13:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 11:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

No. Because you stated that "no helmet equates to zero protection" which means all helmets have some protection.

O.K. I'll rephrase that. if we assume that a total lack of a helmet
equates to zero protection... :-)

Ah, but it doesn't! For years, we had a quite clever poster here (Guy
Chapman) who noted, by analogy, that his wooly cap had saved his life!

I could make the same claim. The only time I hit my head while riding
was when I was a teen. It was a fairly hard hit, and I'm sure a helmet
would have been crushed or cracked, had they existed and I had been
wearing one. So I guess it was the wooly cap that saved me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Want to have some fun? Take a couple of melons and put a wooly cap on one and a helmet on the other and then drop them from a a respectable height so that the wooly cap hits the pavement first and also the helmet hits the pavement first. I'm willing to be that t he melon with the helmet over it will suffer less damage than the melon with the wooly cap.

It's a very popular demonstration, quite useful at scaring parents and
their little kids away from ever riding bicycles. Too bad they don't do
the same thing for those much bigger sources of brain injuries - riding
in cars and walking.

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?


But! But! Frank! The government is only trying (by legislation) to
make you safe...

Perhaps a logical extenuation of the concept would be simply
outlawing those dangerous devices called bicycles.
Think of it, perhaps 800 lives, and thousands of injuries, saved every
year.

And it makes perfect sense in the USian logical system. After all,
every time there is a mass shooting the anti gun fraternity is
screaming for guns to be banned and here we have this two wheeled
device that is killing 800 perfectly good tax paying US citizens every
year.

Ban The Two Wheel Killers!
--
cheers,

John B.


Absolutely! If every scary looking firearm were to suddenly
vanish why we'd all be safe:

Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000? What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a danger.

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

We just had two mass murders within about half a day, one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?


You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.
--
cheers,

John B.


As I often note, we're a large nation. We have one of
everything.

We are indeed a very well armed country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7ba8f4d2160

And yet today, as most days, the greater bulk of firearms
were nicely oiled and packed in their cases.

Violent events per lawfully armed citizen are extremely low
but as compared to countries without significant firearm
ownership, higher.

As with our current contraband drug discussion, Mexico has
draconian and extensive firearm regulation, a virtual
prohibition, yet their firearm murder rate is horrific.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ence-up-report

It isn't clear to me that the Vice Lords, MS-13, Crips,
Bloods or P-Stone Nation will disarm just because law
abiding citizens would.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Another problem is that the left will openly lie about "gun crimes" or "murders". 80% of all gun deaths are suicides and the left inserts those into the murders by gun column. There may be many reasons for suicide not the least of which is an ever encroaching government driving people into bankruptcy.

A good friend just died of Alzheimer's which many people don't realize is a 100% fatal disease. Many people with a diagnosis and who begin showing symptoms know that sooner rather than later you will become incapable of dealing with it and that often it is better to stop it now than let a family live through what has to be a rather horrible event.

I don't quite know what to make of comments like those from Frank where it never even occurs to him that when high performance cycling became very popular that head injuries also had a sharp increase. And as my own published study showed, helmet have no effect on fatal injuries.

Whether or not the Trek Wavecell technology improves that any, will be interesting to watch and we can always hope.
  #69  
Old August 5th 19, 09:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 12:49:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/4/2019 7:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:24:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:13:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 11:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

No. Because you stated that "no helmet equates to zero protection" which means all helmets have some protection.

O.K. I'll rephrase that. if we assume that a total lack of a helmet
equates to zero protection... :-)

Ah, but it doesn't! For years, we had a quite clever poster here (Guy
Chapman) who noted, by analogy, that his wooly cap had saved his life!

I could make the same claim. The only time I hit my head while riding
was when I was a teen. It was a fairly hard hit, and I'm sure a helmet
would have been crushed or cracked, had they existed and I had been
wearing one. So I guess it was the wooly cap that saved me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Want to have some fun? Take a couple of melons and put a wooly cap on one and a helmet on the other and then drop them from a a respectable height so that the wooly cap hits the pavement first and also the helmet hits the pavement first. I'm willing to be that t he melon with the helmet over it will suffer less damage than the melon with the wooly cap.

It's a very popular demonstration, quite useful at scaring parents and
their little kids away from ever riding bicycles. Too bad they don't do
the same thing for those much bigger sources of brain injuries - riding
in cars and walking.

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?


But! But! Frank! The government is only trying (by legislation) to
make you safe...

Perhaps a logical extenuation of the concept would be simply
outlawing those dangerous devices called bicycles.
Think of it, perhaps 800 lives, and thousands of injuries, saved every
year.

And it makes perfect sense in the USian logical system. After all,
every time there is a mass shooting the anti gun fraternity is
screaming for guns to be banned and here we have this two wheeled
device that is killing 800 perfectly good tax paying US citizens every
year.

Ban The Two Wheel Killers!
--
cheers,

John B.


Absolutely! If every scary looking firearm were to suddenly
vanish why we'd all be safe:

Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000? What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a danger.

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

We just had two mass murders within about half a day, one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.
--
cheers,

John B.


As I often note, we're a large nation. We have one of
everything.

We are indeed a very well armed country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7ba8f4d2160

And yet today, as most days, the greater bulk of firearms
were nicely oiled and packed in their cases.

Violent events per lawfully armed citizen are extremely low
but as compared to countries without significant firearm
ownership, higher.

As with our current contraband drug discussion, Mexico has
draconian and extensive firearm regulation, a virtual
prohibition, yet their firearm murder rate is horrific.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ence-up-report

It isn't clear to me that the Vice Lords, MS-13, Crips,
Bloods or P-Stone Nation will disarm just because law
abiding citizens would.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Another problem is that the left will openly lie about "gun crimes" or "murders". 80% of all gun deaths are suicides and the left inserts those into the murders by gun column. There may be many reasons for suicide not the least of which is an ever encroaching government driving people into bankruptcy.


Speaking of bankruptcy, Tom, how is the portfolio doing today? Hope your advisors put you in long-term bond funds -- or maybe gold. Who would have thought China would retaliate? It's so complicated!

-- Jay Beattie.



  #70  
Old August 6th 19, 01:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 11:33:05 AM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:25:38 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:12:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:06:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 2:24:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 7:47:21 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 1:09 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:13:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?

Wrong again Frank. There's no mandatory helmet law where I live.

Really? I thought you lived in Ontario.

From Wikipedia:
"The use of bicycle helmets is compulsory in the provinces of British
Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and
Prince Edward Island.[12] In the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and
Ontario, the use of helmets is mandatory for cyclists under the age of
18 years of age.[13][14][15][16]"

Perhaps you're unaware of the law? If so, perhaps you should read up
before arguing.


Last time I looked this is rec.BICYCLES.tech not rec.pedestrians.tech or
rec.car.tech. Therefore most of us who talk about helmets here are
talking about helmets as they pertain to BICYCLING.

If that's how you feel, you should have taken your "smash a melon"
helmet promoting argument to rec.melons.tech, or some other such newsgroup.

Why are so many people so dedicated to claiming that only _bicyclists_
should (or must) wear helmets, as if bicycling has tremendous brain
injury risk? Do those people not understand the numbers? Or, like the
laws, do those people just not bother to examine them?

--
- Frank Krygowski

I'm over 18 thus there is NO mandatory helmet law for me.

I'm aware of that. But your statement was "There's no mandatory helmet law
where I live." That was clearly false. You should admit it.

There is a MHL in Ontario, but due largely to the efforts of a guy I happen to
correspond with, the law was amended so it doesn't apply to adults.

I'm quite sure that if the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL
would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski

BULL****! Frank. You do NOT know what I think!

The issue isn't so much what you think, Sir. It's what you did - or more
precisely, what you didn't do.

The person I'm alluding to was part of a lobbying group that worked hard against
an adult MHL for Ontario. The bill as originally written mandated helmets for
ALL bicyclists at ALL times, just as do the MHLs in British Columbia, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI etc. The lobbying group in Ontario (largely led
by my friend) managed to convince legislators that adults should be allowed
to gasp! decide for themselves.

Now, Sir, were you part of that group? Did you contact your legislators? What
_did_ you do to allow freedom of choice?

I suspect you did nothing. I suspect that at the time, you were still arguing
ferociously in favor of helmets, using nonsense like "the melon test." IOW, if
the issue had been left up to you, the Ontario MHL would indeed apply to adults.

- Frank Krygowski


Frank, do you think that you are God that you know what others thousands
of miles from you do/did/didn't do/know/think? I've seen so many posts by
you where you take exception to events that happened very far from you.
Exceptions wherein you stated that the person on the scene was wrong. It
must be nice to be omniscient.

Cheers


A rhetorical question?

--
duane


Exactement! Krygowski loves us so much, he worries: if he isn't there to tell us what to think, do, and wear, who will do it.

Andre Jute
Control freaks unite!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trek X01/Bontrager Race wheels GrandTheftVelo Techniques 7 August 16th 08 12:48 AM
Trek Fuel superior technology LIBERATOR Mountain Biking 1 September 1st 06 09:58 PM
FS: Trek/Bontrager carbon fork Charles Stickle Marketplace 0 October 3rd 05 12:22 AM
Stock Trek Tires (Bontrager) Badger_South General 5 June 2nd 04 07:24 PM
The secret of Trek's OCLV technology . . . Stan Shankman Techniques 21 May 12th 04 02:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.