Inflatable helmet, really

Hey!

Is one of y'all twisting Tom Sherman's arm and forcing him to read my
postings?

B'gwad, Tom, if'n *I* catch 'em, they'll wish they hadn't done that.
I'm mighty particular 'bout this bein' a free forum and I absolutely
*WILL NOT* tolerate anyone coercing you in any way, shape or form into
reading anything that offends you!

Believe me, sir... I *will* stand up for your rights here.

Jones

On Sep 7, 4:12*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:57:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? *The
one with no helmet requirement?

How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
helmet requirement?
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/cl...ple_waiver.pdf


Of course I won't read a link.

Of _course_ you won't! If you did, you'd have to consider admitting
that you were wrong. That might interfere with your using foul
language against those who showed you were wrong. And we know how
much you enjoy your obscenities!

Here's my philosophy, Frank: if you value the integrity of your head
as much as *I* value the integrity of your head, then you may damn
well wear anything you please...

Well golly, I appreciate your permission. While you're being so
generous, could you see about getting the mandatory helmet laws
repealed in those Canadian provinces that have them? And maybe New
Zealand as well? I was thinking about taking some vacations.

My point here, Frank, is that, if a person is on a collision course
with some inelastic mass (i.e. concrete,) then that person would
probably prefer that some impact dissipating material be inserted
between their vital organs (i.e. their head) and the inelastic mass.

Yeah, I know, Jones. Except all that applies only when riding a
bike, even though bicycling causes only a couple percent of the
serious brain injuries in America, and is less risky on average than
walking down the street.

For all the activities that cause 98+% of the brain injury problem,
the physics is totally different, isn't it? At least, in Jones land,
that is.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:49:35 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Of _course_ you won't! If you did, you'd have to consider admitting
that you were wrong. That might interfere with your using foul
language against those who showed you were wrong. And we know how
much you enjoy your obscenities!

Frank, in your short life, have you ever seen anyone on Usenet admit
that he or she was wrong? Have you, personally, ever done so? It
simply doesn't happen, Frank!

Unlike you, though, I do not plant my flag on this matter; *I* am not
nearly as deeply invested in the issue as you are. To me, the great
helmet debate is just a curious little oddity encountered in a
backwater of Usenet; however, to you, convincing people not to wear
protective clothing is your life's calling.

SHRUG

Jones

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:59:14 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

No, no, no! Jones, you're forgetting that such simple physics applies
only to bicyclists!

Why, "Jones First Law of Motion" clearly states that for people who
get brain injuries inside cars, or walking about streets, or falling
in the home (and we're up to about 90% of the problem right there)
there is absolutely no benefit to applying styrofoam. None!

Sorry, Frank, but I don't understand your point. Of course, that's
usually the sitaution.

I thought I said: "If you introduce an elastic material into the point
of an inelastic collision, you dissipate the force." By what odd
logic do you conclude that this applies exclusively to bicycles?

Oh, well.

Frank, you're certainly a giggle!

Jones

On Sep 8, 11:53*am, Phil W Lee wrote:

Well, most of them are that clueless, actually. *Besides, if you work
for a corporate entity, then you'd best "love the one you're with"
because they have an exclusive contract. *

Certainly unenforceable if it can be shown to be unreasonable.

Groovy. I agree. Why don't you go get you a good laywer and sue
'em? You have my full support up to (but not including) the point
where you ask me for money. OTOH, you have my complete verbal
support.

Jones

On Sep 8, 7:39*am, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:49:35 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
Of _course_ you won't! *If you did, you'd have to consider admitting
that you were wrong. *That might interfere with your using foul
language against those who showed you were wrong. *And we know how
much you enjoy your obscenities!

Frank, in your short life, have you ever seen anyone on Usenet admit
that he or she was wrong? *Have you, personally, ever done so? *It
simply doesn't happen, Frank!

Yes, I have seen others admit they were wrong, and I have personally
said I was wrong. On one such occasion, the inimitable "jim beam"
promised me a period of freedom from his usual obnoxious attacks,
because he thought my statement of error was such a gallant thing.

Why not try it and see how things go for you?

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 7, 12:51*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

Come on back in a year or three. *Frank'll still be at it.

Sad, really. *BS

I admit that I don't fully understand the dynamic here. What's the
bit with helmets, anyway? I suspect that some parents forced their
children to wear helmets back in the '80s and that we're experiencing
the backlash from that... my mother (may God bless her!) cooked
vegetables into an unrecognizable mush, then made me eat 'em. To this
day, I refuse to eat cooked veggies... but, *you* may eat them cooked
if you like. I suspect that the helmet debate is kind of like that,
only *everyone* should eat them raw.

Jones

On Sep 7, 7:10*am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

No - I will NOT marry you.

Crap! I think I've been refuted!

Jones

"!Jones" wrote in message
...
On Sep 7, 12:51 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

Come on back in a year or three. Frank'll still be at it.

Sad, really. BS

I admit that I don't fully understand the dynamic here. What's the
bit with helmets, anyway? I suspect that some parents forced their
children to wear helmets back in the '80s and that we're experiencing
the backlash from that... my mother (may God bless her!) cooked
vegetables into an unrecognizable mush, then made me eat 'em. To this
day, I refuse to eat cooked veggies... but, *you* may eat them cooked
if you like. I suspect that the helmet debate is kind of like that,
only *everyone* should eat them raw.

Frank's mother potty trained him by making him sit backwards on the commode,
facing the tank. Never got over it.

HTH! BS

On Sep 8, 7:49*am, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:59:14 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
No, no, no! *Jones, you're forgetting that such simple physics applies
only to bicyclists!

Why, "Jones First Law of Motion" clearly states that for people who
get brain injuries inside cars, or walking about streets, or falling
in the home (and we're up to about 90% of the problem right there)
there is absolutely no benefit to applying styrofoam. *None!

Sorry, Frank, but I don't understand your point. *Of course, that's
usually the sitaution.

I thought I said: "If you introduce an elastic material into the point
of an inelastic collision, you dissipate the force." *By what odd
logic do you conclude that this applies exclusively to bicycles?

I said that because you are not promoting helmets for motorists. They
comprise the largest number of head injury fatalities in this county.
That's despite seat bags and air bags.

You aren't promoting helmets for pedestrians. They suffer far more
fatalities than bicyclists, either in number per year or number per
mile traveled.

How about people who take falls around the home? Behind riding in
motor vehicles, that's the second biggest source of TBI fatalities in
the US. Maybe you think helmets are too inconvenient for just
walking around the house under , but if so, why not at least recommend
them when climbing ladders, descending stairs, walking on winter's ice
and snow, etc?

Given that bicycling causes fewer than 1% of the TBI fatalities in the
US, why does nobody attack the major sources by promoting helmets?
More specifically, why don't you?

Is it because Jones First Law of Motion says styrofoam only helps if
you're on a bicycle?

- Frank Krygowski