Inflatable helmet, really

On Sep 8, 8:17*pm, "!Jones" wrote:
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

Hey, Jonesy, I do hope you're not suggesting we ingest Krygowski raw.
He's such an unappetizing lumpenproletariat of gristly obstructionism
that even slow-braised he'd still be nasty. I'd rather turn veggie. --
AJ

PS Please start a separate thread to tell us how your Irish visit
turned out.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[---]

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

Of course not - it's much simpler than that. He's just a troll, and
he's winding you up.

On Sep 9, 6:52*am, Andrew Price wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski

wrote:

[---]

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

Of course not - it's much simpler than that. *He's just a troll, and
he's winding you up.

Winding Frank up is not necessary. He's the first and only example of
perpetual motion in the known universe. Batteries not required.

JS.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 15:49:02 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

For me, I very much dislike the portrayal of all cycling as being so
dangerous that special protective headgear is necessary. ("Don't
leave your driveway without a helmet!!") I think that's bad for
cycling, for cyclists, and for society. It can't help but discourage
cycling, and it makes it more difficult for cyclists to get justice
when someone does harm them, rare as that is.

Well, that's actually logical... most of it, anyway.

*I* certainly didn't ever tell you: "Don't leave your driveway without
a helmet!!" And I have never heard of cycling being described os
particularly dangerous; however, I wouldn't categorically deny that
some might do so; people do strange things.

There are lots of sports wherein participants wear helmets, Frank.
Everyone from skaters to equestrian sports to motorcycle racers all
tend to wear helmets. Soldiers have historically worn helmets; riot
cops wear helmets; wild bull riders wear helmets (some of them,
anyway... never wanted to try it, myself); BASE jumpers wear helmets.
Heck, we had a publicity stunt where someone bungee jumped from a high
bridge and he wore a helmet; however, I haven't a clue what good it
would have done from that height!

A few years ago, I had an "OH ****!" moment with a major component
failure. I had about half a second between the metallic "Pop!" and
impact. No, this isn't a "The helmet saved my life" story because my
head didn't hit... but, I guarantee that the thoughts flashing through
my mind in that half second were not: "I wish I wasn't wearing this
darned helmet!"

Helmets work; that's simply a proven fact. Now, does that mean that
*you* have to wear one? Certainly not if *I* am the arbiter of your
actions. Since I'm not your arbiter, it really doesn't matter what I
think, now, does it?

Jones

On 9/8/2010 9:37 PM, !Jones wrote:
[...]
Helmets work; that's simply a proven fact.[...]

Utter nonsense.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:16:35 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

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?

Oh, you'll see the occasional ownership of an error or two,
particularly in a tech field. I would flatulate that you'll never see
*anyone* acknowledge the opposing point in the abortion cat fight.

You see, Frank, I mostly consider the whole debate a curious Usenet
oddity... I think your position is silly and have thought so all
along, but I have no particular investment. Tomorrow, I'll have moved
along to the jet skiers or the rock climbers and I'll not give it
another thought.

To you, OTOH, the big helmet debate is your *calling*! I'm as likely
to gain support for gun control from the National Rifle Association as
I am to convince you that my helmet is a good idea.

I intend to wear it, anyway, so get over it. I always wear a condom,
too... especially when I shoot up drugs; it prevents AIDS, you know.

Jones

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

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.

I have never taken any position whatsoever on that; why bring it up?

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:52:47 +0200, in rec.bicycles.tech Andrew Price
wrote:

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[---]

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

Of course not - it's much simpler than that. He's just a troll, and
he's winding you up.

I have always believed that quality trolling was a little like pulling
a cat's tail. The point is that all you have to do is *hold* the
cat's tail; the cat will do all of the pulling.

That's my philosophy, anyway.

Tom Sherman wrote:

!Jones wrote:
[...]
Helmets work; that's simply a proven fact.[...]

Utter nonsense.

For sure. When I started riding seriously, helmets were quite rare.
Now they're everywhere, often being worn by the kinds of clueless
riders who have always been most likely to get themselves into
trouble. And yet more or less the same fraction of us get hurt just
as badly and killed just as dead as ever. The data confirm my
impressions in this regard.

What that tells me is that helmets can pass tests, and can even
prevent or reduce injury in an individual incident, but on the whole
something about them must effectively offset their entire measurable
benefit. To me, the simplest explanation is that they make riders
feel safer than they are, and make motorists think cycling is more
dangerous than it is. Both these things could result in higher risk
levels for cyclists.

I can recognize some validity to the claims of increased rotational
brain injury from helmets, but that alone seems like it wouldn't
entirely nullify the protective effect of helmets across the
population.

Chalo

On 9/9/10 12:57 AM, Chalo wrote:
I can recognize some validity to the claims of increased rotational
brain injury from helmets, but that alone seems like it wouldn't
entirely nullify the protective effect of helmets across the
population.

My opinion is that if a bicyclist wore a motorcycle helmet, that would
be the best protection and finally, _really_ have a scientifically
verifiable effect. But, screw doing that.