Motorcycle racer Marco Simoncelli dies after his helmet is knocked off

"davethedave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:31:20 -0700, DirtRoadie wrote:

Apparently wearing a helmet doesn't prevent injuries. So, this is a
case in support of the anti-helmet riders.

Your bias is showing.

The linked article describes:
" ...but one of those bikes unfortunately hit the back of Simoncelli's
head, which took his helmet off.
...
The helmet is the most important piece of any protective clothing - and
if you lose that you're very vulnerable."

He was hit in the head by a motorcycle weighing in at 150kgs or so plus
the weight of the rider. This combined mass was travelling at a good
speed.

Yup. And depending on your chosen frame of reference, that speed approached
that of light itself, which clearly is almost certainly fatal, given the v
squared relationship to energy.

What a crock of ****e.

Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:13 am, "Kerry Montgomery" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:59 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle thread, not also
display a trolling agenda?

See, anyone who doesn't agree with Frank Krygowski is a TROLL. Frank
is the perfect fascist. He always assumes that there is only one
right opinion, it is the Krygowski opinion, and not one else has a
right to an opinion, and therefore anything they say is TROLLING.

And then this enemy of liberty and free speech, Krygowski, has the
cheek to pretend to speak for cyclists.

Yo, Franki-boy, "TROLL" is what the little juvenile losers say when
they can't keep up their end in open debate.

For example:

Andre Jute View profile
Hide options Jun 17, 11:13 am

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech, rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc
From: Andre Jute
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 17 2011 11:13 am
Subject: Where is the point?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message |
Find messages by this author
On Jun 17, 11:04 am, Tºm Shermªn °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

- Show quoted text -

The word you're reaching for, Liddell Tommi, is "tautology", or
"tautological". I do it on purpose to troll the more pompous
arseholes on the board. When I do it, it is tomorrow's everyday
(heh-heh) vernacular, when you and Mikey do it, it is illiterate.

begin 666 dot_clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

Er, Kerry-baby, what's the point of your quotation from the archives?
The word "troll" is used in it to describe a linguistic lure dragged
in front of some pedants so I can step on their tails.

The word "troll" as used by that poor quarterwit Krygowski is an
admission that he realizes he is inadequate to debate the matter with
me, and an attempt at emotional blackmail of the sort: "If you say
what I don't like, my little feelings will be hurt."

If you don't mind me saying so, dear Kerry, your confusion of a
literary device with the bullyboy tactics of the anti-helmet zealots
makes you seem as quite as thickly insensitive to meaning and context
as the current RBT Star Dumbo, Henk Fictorie, who at least has the
excuse that English is not his mother tongue.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that you should stand up for Krygowski's
unconstitutional attempts to stifle free speech on RBT. I thought you
were better than that.


Andre Jute,
Frank Krygowski's quote,"And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle
thread, not also
display a trolling agenda?" Would seem to refer to the behavior you state
that you indulge in by your quote,"I do it on purpose to troll the more
pompous arseholes on the board." Your earlier quote sounds as if you agree
with Frank Krygowski's statement, so your current response disagreeing with
his statement surprised me.
Kerry

On Oct 27, 2:58*am, "Kerry Montgomery" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:13 am, "Kerry Montgomery" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:59 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle thread, not also
display a trolling agenda?

See, anyone who doesn't agree with Frank Krygowski is a TROLL. Frank
is the perfect fascist. He always assumes that there is only one
right opinion, it is the Krygowski opinion, and not one else has a
right to an opinion, and therefore anything they say is TROLLING.

And then this enemy of liberty and free speech, Krygowski, has the
cheek to pretend to speak for cyclists.

Yo, Franki-boy, "TROLL" is what the little juvenile losers say when
they can't keep up their end in open debate.

For example:

Andre Jute View profile
Hide options Jun 17, 11:13 am

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech, rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc
From: Andre Jute
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 17 2011 11:13 am
Subject: Where is the point?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message |
Find messages by this author
On Jun 17, 11:04 am, Tºm Shermªn °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

- Show quoted text -

The word you're reaching for, Liddell Tommi, is "tautology", or
"tautological". I do it on purpose to troll the more pompous
arseholes on the board. When I do it, it is tomorrow's everyday
(heh-heh) vernacular, when you and Mikey do it, it is illiterate.

begin 666 dot_clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

Er, Kerry-baby, what's the point of your quotation from the archives?
The word "troll" is used in it to describe a linguistic lure dragged
in front of some pedants so I can step on their tails.

The word "troll" as used by that poor quarterwit Krygowski is an
admission that he realizes he is inadequate to debate the matter with
me, and an attempt at emotional blackmail of the sort: "If you say
what I don't like, my little feelings will be hurt."

If you don't mind me saying so, dear Kerry, your confusion of a
literary device with the bullyboy tactics of the anti-helmet zealots
makes you seem as quite as thickly insensitive to meaning and context
as *the current RBT Star Dumbo, Henk Fictorie, who at least has the
excuse that English is not his mother tongue.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that you should stand up for Krygowski's
unconstitutional attempts to stifle free speech on RBT. I thought you
were better than that.

Andre Jute,
Frank Krygowski's quote,"And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle
thread, not also
display a trolling agenda?" Would seem to refer to the behavior you state
that you indulge in by your quote,"I do it on purpose to troll the more
pompous arseholes on the board." Your earlier quote sounds as if you agree
with Frank Krygowski's statement, so your current response disagreeing with
his statement surprised me.
Kerry

Good heavens, you really have as little grasp is the thicko Fictorie
of what the words mean. In one case I was talking about *tautologies*,
clever use of words. Now, taking my words further out of context each
time you mangle the quotation the more closely to follow your
swingeing accusations, you're accusing me of using the death of a
young man merely to tease a few idiots on RBT. That makes you as
despicable as it makes the behavior of the resident scum, including
Krygowski, in this thread.

Let us be quite clear. if they had any taste or decency, that scum
should have stayed out of this discussion. They're the ones making it
nasty with tasteless remarks. You're the one aiding and abetting them
by trying to smear me with their brush. That's despicable, Montgomery,
and you know it. (And didn't you complain about a far lower level of
tastelessness and indecency in the gloating about Jobst's accident? If
so, you're a hypocrite as well.)

I will furthermore say that accusations of being a troll are leveled
only by anti-constitutional netbullies like Krygowski trying to stop
discussion of subjects on which they know they don't have a foot to
stand on. The subtext of the troll accusation is that there is
agreement about some subject and that the anti-social elements hurling
the accusation are the keepers of that agreement. It is a form of
emotional blackmail, a claim that their little feelings will be hurt
when anyone brings facts that contradict their prejudices. They then
use this slimy non-reason to justify their anti-social behaviour,
because their little feeling were offended by the truth.

That's not only juvenile, that's beneath contempt.

On Oct 27, 2:25*am, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Oct 26, 7:09*pm, John B. wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:21:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Henk Fictorie:
When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.

I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.

If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
it in the process of being ripped off.

Seehttp://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html

It is just one study, by an _economist_ no less, but it is reassuring
to see that motorcycle helmets are beneficial.
DR

I wouldn't be in such a hurry to dismiss a study by economists, Dirt.
Many economists and psychologists today are more elegant statisticians
than the merely mathematical technicians, not to mention engineering
idiots like Krygowski who consider statistics an adjunct to his
wishful thinking.

The interesting thing about the Goldberg study is that it relates
fatalities, head injuries and neck injuries as -- not the same
interchangeable data. It also sorts out the bugbear of alcohol use
definitively, and calculates a margin speed up to which the helmet is
almost entirely beneficial.

There is only one bicycle study I know which can be used to calculate
separately for fatalities and serious injuries, the one in New York
(which the anti-helmet zealots won't even discuss because it totally
undermines their prejudice with utterly unassailable numbers), so this
Goldberg study is a fascinating confirmation.

However, Goldberg has very little to do modern racing conditions and
helmets.

On Oct 26, 8:45*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:25*am, DirtRoadie wrote:





On Oct 26, 7:09*pm, John B. wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:21:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Henk Fictorie:
When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.

I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.

If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
it in the process of being ripped off.

Seehttp://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html

It is just one study, by an _economist_ no less, but it is reassuring
to see that motorcycle helmets are beneficial.
DR

I wouldn't be in such a hurry to dismiss a study by economists, Dirt.
Many economists and psychologists today are more elegant statisticians
than the merely mathematical technicians, not to mention engineering
idiots like Krygowski who consider statistics an adjunct to his
wishful thinking.

There is obviously no way of knowing (either way) the accuracy of a
particular statistical study. But if the statistics involve injury I
would be a little more receptive to a statistical review done by
someone with good combination of medical knowledge AND analytical
skills.
Analogously, I do recall Krygowski spouting off here about what could
be shown statistically (in his mind) using the average speeds from
Milan San Remo over the years. Utterly laughable, anyone with a
smidgeon of knowledge about such events could quickly understand that
he was engaged in classic GIGO. An unsupportable underlying assumption
leads only to erroneous conclusions. But Frank is, sadly, not very
bright. Worse yet, he doesn't know that he's not very bright and is
not very teachable.

The interesting thing about the Goldberg study is that it relates
fatalities, head injuries and neck injuries as -- not the same
interchangeable data.

That actually jumps out rather emphatically. Helmets = No change in
fatalities, but clear benefit in preventing head injuries. Sumptin'
ain't right - there are no fatalities involving head injuries? Or ALL
head injuries which would have been fatal instantly become neck injury
fatalities when wearing a helmet?

It also sorts out the bugbear of alcohol use
definitively, and calculates a margin speed up to which the helmet is
almost entirely beneficial.

Yes, as in benefit with no downside. What's not to like?

There is only one bicycle study I know which can be used to calculate
separately for fatalities and serious injuries, the one in New York
(which the anti-helmet zealots won't even discuss because it totally
undermines their prejudice with utterly unassailable numbers), so this
Goldberg study is a fascinating confirmation.

However, Goldberg has very little to do modern racing conditions and
helmets.

It's A study, one study - nothing to get worked up over one way or the
other.

I was serious when I said that I don't think helmet discussions belong
in RBT. But even Frank himself does not seem willing to concede that.
Apparently he's on a mission from GOD.
My apologies to those who suggested this thread be dropped. I agree.

DR

On 27/10/2011 03:31, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:58 am, "Kerry wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:13 am, "Kerry wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:59 pm, Frank
wrote:

And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle thread, not also
display a trolling agenda?

See, anyone who doesn't agree with Frank Krygowski is a TROLL. Frank
is the perfect fascist. He always assumes that there is only one
right opinion, it is the Krygowski opinion, and not one else has a
right to an opinion, and therefore anything they say is TROLLING.

And then this enemy of liberty and free speech, Krygowski, has the
cheek to pretend to speak for cyclists.

Yo, Franki-boy, "TROLL" is what the little juvenile losers say when
they can't keep up their end in open debate.

For example:

Andre Jute View profile
Hide options Jun 17, 11:13 am

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech, rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc
From: Andre
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 17 2011 11:13 am
Subject: Where is the point?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message |
Find messages by this author
On Jun 17, 11:04 am, Tºm Shermªn °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

- Show quoted text -

The word you're reaching for, Liddell Tommi, is "tautology", or
"tautological". I do it on purpose to troll the more pompous
arseholes on the board. When I do it, it is tomorrow's everyday
(heh-heh) vernacular, when you and Mikey do it, it is illiterate.

begin 666 dot_clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

Er, Kerry-baby, what's the point of your quotation from the archives?
The word "troll" is used in it to describe a linguistic lure dragged
in front of some pedants so I can step on their tails.

The word "troll" as used by that poor quarterwit Krygowski is an
admission that he realizes he is inadequate to debate the matter with
me, and an attempt at emotional blackmail of the sort: "If you say
what I don't like, my little feelings will be hurt."

If you don't mind me saying so, dear Kerry, your confusion of a
literary device with the bullyboy tactics of the anti-helmet zealots
makes you seem as quite as thickly insensitive to meaning and context
as the current RBT Star Dumbo, Henk Fictorie, who at least has the
excuse that English is not his mother tongue.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that you should stand up for Krygowski's
unconstitutional attempts to stifle free speech on RBT. I thought you
were better than that.

Andre Jute,
Frank Krygowski's quote,"And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle
thread, not also
display a trolling agenda?" Would seem to refer to the behavior you state
that you indulge in by your quote,"I do it on purpose to troll the more
pompous arseholes on the board." Your earlier quote sounds as if you agree
with Frank Krygowski's statement, so your current response disagreeing with
his statement surprised me.
Kerry

Good heavens, you really have as little grasp is the thicko Fictorie
of what the words mean. In one case I was talking about *tautologies*,
clever use of words. Now, taking my words further out of context each
time you mangle the quotation the more closely to follow your
swingeing accusations, you're accusing me of using the death of a
young man merely to tease a few idiots on RBT. That makes you as
despicable as it makes the behavior of the resident scum, including
Krygowski, in this thread.

Let us be quite clear. if they had any taste or decency, that scum
should have stayed out of this discussion. They're the ones making it
nasty with tasteless remarks. You're the one aiding and abetting them
by trying to smear me with their brush. That's despicable, Montgomery,
and you know it. (And didn't you complain about a far lower level of
tastelessness and indecency in the gloating about Jobst's accident? If
so, you're a hypocrite as well.)

I will furthermore say that accusations of being a troll are leveled
only by anti-constitutional netbullies like Krygowski trying to stop
discussion of subjects on which they know they don't have a foot to
stand on. The subtext of the troll accusation is that there is
agreement about some subject and that the anti-social elements hurling
the accusation are the keepers of that agreement. It is a form of
emotional blackmail, a claim that their little feelings will be hurt
when anyone brings facts that contradict their prejudices. They then
use this slimy non-reason to justify their anti-social behaviour,
because their little feeling were offended by the truth.

That's not only juvenile, that's beneath contempt.

My, you write a lot.

Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:58 am, "Kerry Montgomery" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:13 am, "Kerry Montgomery"
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:59 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And does Jute, who initiated this non-bicycle thread, not also
display a trolling agenda?

See, anyone who doesn't agree with Frank Krygowski is a TROLL.
Frank is the perfect fascist. He always assumes that there is
only one right opinion, it is the Krygowski opinion, and not one
else has a right to an opinion, and therefore anything they say
is TROLLING.

And then this enemy of liberty and free speech, Krygowski, has the
cheek to pretend to speak for cyclists.

Yo, Franki-boy, "TROLL" is what the little juvenile losers say
when they can't keep up their end in open debate.

For example:

Andre Jute View profile
Hide options Jun 17, 11:13 am

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech, rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc
From: Andre Jute
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 17 2011 11:13 am
Subject: Where is the point?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message |
Find messages by this author
On Jun 17, 11:04 am, Tºm Shermªn °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

- Show quoted text -

The word you're reaching for, Liddell Tommi, is "tautology", or
"tautological". I do it on purpose to troll the more pompous
arseholes on the board. When I do it, it is tomorrow's everyday
(heh-heh) vernacular, when you and Mikey do it, it is illiterate.

begin 666 dot_clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

Er, Kerry-baby, what's the point of your quotation from the
archives? The word "troll" is used in it to describe a linguistic
lure dragged in front of some pedants so I can step on their tails.

The word "troll" as used by that poor quarterwit Krygowski is an
admission that he realizes he is inadequate to debate the matter
with me, and an attempt at emotional blackmail of the sort: "If you
say what I don't like, my little feelings will be hurt."

If you don't mind me saying so, dear Kerry, your confusion of a
literary device with the bullyboy tactics of the anti-helmet zealots
makes you seem as quite as thickly insensitive to meaning and
context as the current RBT Star Dumbo, Henk Fictorie, who at least
has the excuse that English is not his mother tongue.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that you should stand up for Krygowski's
unconstitutional attempts to stifle free speech on RBT. I thought
you were better than that.

Andre Jute,
Frank Krygowski's quote,"And does Jute, who initiated this
non-bicycle thread, not also
display a trolling agenda?" Would seem to refer to the behavior you
state that you indulge in by your quote,"I do it on purpose to troll
the more pompous arseholes on the board." Your earlier quote sounds
as if you agree with Frank Krygowski's statement, so your current
response disagreeing with his statement surprised me.
Kerry

Good heavens, you really have as little grasp is the thicko Fictorie
of what the words mean. In one case I was talking about *tautologies*,
clever use of words. Now, taking my words further out of context each
time you mangle the quotation the more closely to follow your
swingeing accusations, you're accusing me of using the death of a
young man merely to tease a few idiots on RBT. That makes you as
despicable as it makes the behavior of the resident scum, including
Krygowski, in this thread.

Let us be quite clear. if they had any taste or decency, that scum
should have stayed out of this discussion. They're the ones making it
nasty with tasteless remarks. You're the one aiding and abetting them
by trying to smear me with their brush. That's despicable, Montgomery,
and you know it. (And didn't you complain about a far lower level of
tastelessness and indecency in the gloating about Jobst's accident? If
so, you're a hypocrite as well.)

I will furthermore say that accusations of being a troll are leveled
only by anti-constitutional netbullies like Krygowski trying to stop
discussion of subjects on which they know they don't have a foot to
stand on. The subtext of the troll accusation is that there is
agreement about some subject and that the anti-social elements hurling
the accusation are the keepers of that agreement. It is a form of
emotional blackmail, a claim that their little feelings will be hurt
when anyone brings facts that contradict their prejudices. They then
use this slimy non-reason to justify their anti-social behaviour,
because their little feeling were offended by the truth.

That's not only juvenile, that's beneath contempt.

Andre Jute,
Yes, you were talking about tautologies, and about using them to troll. That
seems consistent with Frank Krygowski's question.
No, I'm not accusing you of "using the death of a young man to tease a few
idiots on RBT.", just commenting on trolling, so I'm not a hypocrite.
Kerry

On Oct 26, 11:30*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

There is obviously no way of knowing (either way) the accuracy of a
particular statistical study. *

Well, I'll admit that there is no way for _some_ people to know the
accuracy of a particular statistical study. It depends quite a lot on
the intelligence and background of the person.

Two of my frequent correspondents on helmet effectiveness are PhDs in
statistics. Both are helmet skeptics. One obtained the original data
set from the most (in)famous pro-helmet study, and used the data to
demonstrate both basic errors in computation and serious problems
caused by self-selection of subjects. The former mistake cause the
most common quotations of that study's results to be numerically
wrong, and the latter show the entire computation of helmet benefit to
be worthless.

Now we could, theoretically, discuss those facts in detail. They'd be
far more pertinent than the anonymous "DirtRoadie's" refrence to Milan-
San Remo data - a reference which just resurrects another argument he
lost.

I say we could, theoretically, discuss those facts. But there's
little reason to try reasonable discussion with people who are
willfully abusive.

- Frank Krygowski

On Oct 26, 10:36*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I say we could, theoretically, discuss those facts. *But there's
little reason to try reasonable discussion with people who are
willfully abusive.

- Frank Krygowski

Or those who are willfully ignorant.
Tell us again about Milan San Remo.
Your selective memory continues to deteriorate.

DR

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:25:56 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:

On Oct 26, 7:09*pm, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:21:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Henk Fictorie:
When he started the race he was wearing a helmet right until the moment
of the accident. Due to the accident the helmet came off. My conclusion
is that the helmet didn't prevent him from his tragic accident.

I'm still wondering exactly what the fatal injury was.

If it was massive neck trauma, then the helmet might have caused
it in the process of being ripped off.

Seehttp://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html

It is just one study, by an _economist_ no less, but it is reassuring
to see that motorcycle helmets are beneficial.
DR

As it was very much a nose counting exercise it might be that an
economist might be just the bloke to undertake it.. And I saw no
tendency to prove a point or show one side in a better light then the
other.


--
John B.