loose chain guard with defect plastic bar to hold it

On Tue, 24 May 2016 08:29:45 -0400, Duane
wrote:

No one here claims that they save lives though I'm sure some people
claim that.

There are some that do in this forum and some that are even quite driven
about it.

Preventing scalp wounds is not a small thing.

That is actually something helmets are good at if you crash and land on
your noggin.

Helmet debates are a pain in the ...

Yes, this is true. Especially when there are just a handful of people
who keep writing the same things they've been writing for close to 20
years (like me... d'oh!).

On Mon, 23 May 2016 20:42:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 5/23/2016 7:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Wearing a helmet bothers me not at all and, in fact, they make a much
better hat on hot sunny days than my cycling caps.

It's on hot, humid days that the helmet bothers me the most. No
matter what the design of sweat pads, they saturate with sweat then
drip the stuff into my eyes.

True, but I get that with cycling caps too. And the caps feel hotter
due to covering my hair and preventing airflow over my head. But if I
cut the tops off the caps for some airflow I get sunburned. 6 vs. a
half dozen. Ah, once upon a time I could wear neither hat nor helmet
and not get sunburned on the top of my head. But for the past 10 years
or so...

That effect is worst after cresting a tough climb. The climb produces
plenty of sweat, the pads get totally saturated; then when I pass the
crest and start the following downhill, the stuff drips and even blows
into my eyes. Riding blind is bad, and so is a fast downhill with one
hand on the bars, one hand trying to mop away sweat.

I will sometimes stop for a moment and press teh sweat out of the pads.
Yuck.

A cycling cap wicks the forehead sweat away, with no eye drips. Much
more comfortable.

I have been known to take my cap or my helmet off when climbing in those
conditions. The cap goes in a pocket and the helmet hooks over stem and
dangles over the bars. I usually leave the cap off for the descent if
it is fast as I have had them blow off my head (I learned that in the
Alps).

On Tue, 24 May 2016 07:19:41 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/23/2016 6:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

snip

Nice overview, well written.
Be prepared for a round of insults.

LOL. I was/am. :-)

rOn Tue, 24 May 2016 12:55:28 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

Tim McNamara writes:

Someone who has ridden a bike "a lifetime,"
whatever that means, is probably going to be
a better judge of "when everything is OK nd
when there is a situation" (whatever that
means).

Even if that was so, you are not alone on
the road!

But it isn't so. The most experienced people
are the most likely to have accidents, because
they do it more often than those with
less experience.


You mean like Jacques Cousteau is more likely to drown then the
average bloke? Or Michael Schumacher is more likely to have a car
accident?

In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some of
the most experienced climbers on Mount Everest.
Yet both died from exposure and several clients
were also lost or suffered permanent damage.

Your example has nothing to do with the ability of Hall or Fischer.
The catastrophe was caused by a blizzard that struck the mountain
while the climbers were exposed.

Another example: When I was a kid my family
knew I guy who was a professional truck driver.
That didn't stop him from ending his days in
his truck after an accident on the road.

So? I know a number of truck drivers who drove their entire working
life and died in bed. I've got a brother-in-law that drove a mail
truck until he retired at 65 years of age. Still living.

With biking it is likely that less experienced
people are more safe as they are not
overconfident and don't go as fast as the
experienced ones.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:09:58 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

Frank Krygowski
writes:

Yes, the characters of Star Wars wear
helmets. But when you're relying on science
fiction to make you're argument, you should
realize that you're on shaky ground.

The helmet seems to be a very common thing in
many human pursuits and activities, thru the
ages - there are many more examples than
I mentioned: soldiers, cops (riots),
firefighters, horsemen, roofers, industrial
workers, miners, chimney sweeps, people in the
oil industry, etc.

I would have to argue with your examples.

Soldiers... I never saw a "soldier" wear a helmet during the almost
year and a half I spent in Vietnam, nor do I believe that any of the
"special forces" troops wear helmets in any theater.

Horsemen? Do Rodeo riders, probably the more dangerous horsy pastime,
wear helmets?

Roofers? Well, I've been seeing roofers since I was a little boy, and
in fact actually re-roofed a historical building once. No helmets.

The Oil Industry. Yup, you can't go up on the "floor" without a
helmet. Why?

The most dangerous occurrence while on the floor of a drilling rig
would be that the brake slips and the crown block comes crashing down
on your head - a great iron thing that weighs between 5,000 and 40,000
lbs. depending on the rig.

The helmet take on many different forms to
adapt to the particular circumstances.

Except for bicycle helmets which are 1) not
needed and 2) designed so they won't work
anyway and 3) actually increases the risk?

If so, it certainly goes against my
intuition...

Intuition? Ever seen a Rugby, or Australian Rules, player? Big hulking
brutes dressed in shorts and not a helmet in sight.

Bicycles raced for many years without helmets but since 2003 helmets
have been mandatory. I found a list of professional cyclists who have
been killed while racing. A total of 106 riders, the first in 1894.

The numbers are, 88 riders killed in the 109 years between 1894 and
2003, and 18 killed between 2003 and the present. An average of 1.385
deaths annually for the years with enforced helmet use and for the
earlier period the average number of deaths annually is 0.807.

Truly, helmets make the cyclist safer!
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 24 May 2016 11:36:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/24/2016 6:55 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

Someone who has ridden a bike "a lifetime,"
whatever that means, is probably going to be
a better judge of "when everything is OK nd
when there is a situation" (whatever that
means).

Even if that was so, you are not alone on
the road!

But it isn't so. The most experienced people
are the most likely to have accidents, because
they do it more often than those with
less experience.

In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some of
the most experienced climbers on Mount Everest.
Yet both died from exposure and several clients
were also lost or suffered permanent damage.

Another example: When I was a kid my family
knew I guy who was a professional truck driver.
That didn't stop him from ending his days in
his truck after an accident on the road.

With biking it is likely that less experienced
people are more safe as they are not
overconfident and don't go as fast as the
experienced ones.

As usual, there is reasonably good data indicating what you say is wrong
- not only regarding bicycling, but regarding other activities as well.

New car drivers have much higher crash rates than experienced drivers
(at least, until the diminished capabilities of elderly drivers
overpower their wisdom and experience).

New pilots have far more bad incidents than experienced ones. Why else
would a person need many flying hours to qualify as an instructor?

Kids on bikes have far more crashes than adults on bikes. College kids
on bikes have far more crashes than experienced bike club riders.

And you seem unaware that it's possible to be very experienced and NOT
be an overconfident risk taker. I know many cyclists who fit that
description. I'm one of them. (Reminder: I've had only two moving
on-road falls in well over 40 years of adult cycling. Neither fall
caused serious injury.)

There are, on occasion, bad things that happen to experienced people.
But emphasizing a single anecdote here or there ignores the much bigger
collection of real data - that is, it ignores the true picture.

I might add that U.S. Army studies have shown that new troops have the
largest percentage of deaths in combat during the first few hours
spent under fire. Subsequent combat results in a lower percent of
fatalities.

Apparently, even in really dangerous circumstances, experience is
beneficial.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:40:50 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2016 20:42:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 5/23/2016 7:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Wearing a helmet bothers me not at all and, in fact, they make a much
better hat on hot sunny days than my cycling caps.

It's on hot, humid days that the helmet bothers me the most. No
matter what the design of sweat pads, they saturate with sweat then
drip the stuff into my eyes.

True, but I get that with cycling caps too. And the caps feel hotter
due to covering my hair and preventing airflow over my head. But if I
cut the tops off the caps for some airflow I get sunburned. 6 vs. a
half dozen. Ah, once upon a time I could wear neither hat nor helmet
and not get sunburned on the top of my head. But for the past 10 years
or so...

Black paint?

That effect is worst after cresting a tough climb. The climb produces
plenty of sweat, the pads get totally saturated; then when I pass the
crest and start the following downhill, the stuff drips and even blows
into my eyes. Riding blind is bad, and so is a fast downhill with one
hand on the bars, one hand trying to mop away sweat.

I will sometimes stop for a moment and press teh sweat out of the pads.
Yuck.

A cycling cap wicks the forehead sweat away, with no eye drips. Much
more comfortable.

I have been known to take my cap or my helmet off when climbing in those
conditions. The cap goes in a pocket and the helmet hooks over stem and
dangles over the bars. I usually leave the cap off for the descent if
it is fast as I have had them blow off my head (I learned that in the
Alps).
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/25/2016 12:33 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:09:58 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

Frank Krygowski
writes:

Yes, the characters of Star Wars wear
helmets. But when you're relying on science
fiction to make you're argument, you should
realize that you're on shaky ground.

The helmet seems to be a very common thing in
many human pursuits and activities, thru the
ages - there are many more examples than
I mentioned: soldiers, cops (riots),
firefighters, horsemen, roofers, industrial
workers, miners, chimney sweeps, people in the
oil industry, etc.

I would have to argue with your examples.

Soldiers... I never saw a "soldier" wear a helmet during the almost
year and a half I spent in Vietnam, nor do I believe that any of the
"special forces" troops wear helmets in any theater.

Horsemen? Do Rodeo riders, probably the more dangerous horsy pastime,
wear helmets?

Roofers? Well, I've been seeing roofers since I was a little boy, and
in fact actually re-roofed a historical building once. No helmets.

The Oil Industry. Yup, you can't go up on the "floor" without a
helmet. Why?

The most dangerous occurrence while on the floor of a drilling rig
would be that the brake slips and the crown block comes crashing down
on your head - a great iron thing that weighs between 5,000 and 40,000
lbs. depending on the rig.

The helmet take on many different forms to
adapt to the particular circumstances.

Except for bicycle helmets which are 1) not
needed and 2) designed so they won't work
anyway and 3) actually increases the risk?

If so, it certainly goes against my
intuition...

Intuition? Ever seen a Rugby, or Australian Rules, player? Big hulking
brutes dressed in shorts and not a helmet in sight.

Bicycles raced for many years without helmets but since 2003 helmets
have been mandatory. I found a list of professional cyclists who have
been killed while racing. A total of 106 riders, the first in 1894.

The numbers are, 88 riders killed in the 109 years between 1894 and
2003, and 18 killed between 2003 and the present. An average of 1.385
deaths annually for the years with enforced helmet use and for the
earlier period the average number of deaths annually is 0.807.

Truly, helmets make the cyclist safer!


But humans frequently reason by anecdote, such as
Agostinho's death by dog:

http://www.flandriacafe.com/2010/11/...o-soldier.html

It's the outlier events which sell newspapers not the 100+
riders who did not die in le Tour that year.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

John B. writes:

In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
of the most experienced climbers on Mount
Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
several clients were also lost or suffered
permanent damage.

Your example has nothing to do with the
ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
was caused by a blizzard that struck the
mountain while the climbers were exposed.

Now:

Lat's say P is the risk of having an accident
and that is a function that indeed is reduced
with e, the number of times you've done it -
i.e., your experience.

So the risk for you to have an accident the
e'th time you do it is P(e).

The risk function reduction will be very steep
in the beginning: compared to P(1), you will be
much safer at P(2), and even safer at P(3), and
this is why beginners typically first learn in
a special setting which is more forgiving
to mistakes.

However, doing it thousands of times, there
will be virtually no improvement in safety due
to experience - say, from P(6000) to P(6001),
the risk will be in all essence the same!

So at some point e, there is virtually no gain,
on the other hand, the risk, tho perhaps very
small, still exists every time you do it.

So experienced people have accidents and that
is not because they lack experience - it is
because they are exposed to the risk, however
small, over and over!

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 40 Blogomatic articles -

John B. writes:

In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
of the most experienced climbers on Mount
Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
several clients were also lost or suffered
permanent damage.

Your example has nothing to do with the
ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
was caused by a blizzard that struck the
mountain while the climbers were exposed.

Well, there are many books about those events
so I think there are many views and proposed
reasons all of which may be part true...

For example, in this book:

@book{k2,
author = {Ed Viesturs; David Roberts},
ISBN = 0767932609,
publisher = {Broadway},
title = {K2: Life and Death on the World's Most Dangerous Mountain},
year = 2010
}

they say Fischer suffered from
altitude sickness.

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 40 Blogomatic articles -