Helmets

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 12:59:37 AM UTC-7, Gregory Sutter wrote:
On 2016-09-30, John B wrote:

Or, perhaps to put in more graphic terms, the older folks are brave
and stalwart individuals while the youngsters are timid and
fainthearted. Which, of course, explains the modern helmet fetish.

Trolling much?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yL5usLFgY

--
Gregory S. Sutter Mostly Harmless

http://zer0.org/~gsutter/

Did you notice that his header never hit the ground?

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 8:50:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-09-30 02:23, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 02:59:30 -0500, Gregory Sutter
wrote:

On 2016-09-30, John B wrote:

Or, perhaps to put in more graphic terms, the older folks are brave
and stalwart individuals while the youngsters are timid and
fainthearted. Which, of course, explains the modern helmet fetish.

Trolling much?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yL5usLFgY

I am amazed. Are you implying that your bicycle riding is similar to
your you tube example.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV9_i9MEnMg

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg - that absolutely WAS NOT 34 mph (more likely 34 kph) because there's very small possibility of someone overlapping at that speed even downhill. And none of those guys were pushing hard.

Also the crash occurred after 75% of the speed was lost before the locked front wheel caused the cartwheel.

I just had a couple of crashes lately if you remember. And they combined problems from that crash.

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 9:44:18 AM UTC-7, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 09-30-2016 02:01, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:48:52 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 09-29-2016 20:55, John B. wrote:
The study shows that the older generation prefers working in
challenging but possibly risky situations while the younger generation
do not like placing themselves in risky situations.

Alternate interpretation: One generation takes too many risks, The next
generation sees the disasters that result and becomes afraid of risk.

What disasters?

You mean the 700-something people that died riding a bicycle? Compared
with the numbers that died while walking? Or died due to falls?

The NHTSA has it that there were 4,735 pedestrian fatalities, some six
and a half times the number of bicycle fatalities. Are people afraid
of walking? Should one wear a helmet while walking?

Enlighten me. You mention a study saying one generation takes more
risks, I propose a hypothetical causality, and you assume I'm trying to
start a fight about whether bicycling is safe?

--
Wes Groleau

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9XCKP9KN7A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Vlc8fyg_k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OanNFE7xKlg

I think that risk is made up elsewhere.

On 10/2/2016 2:44 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Heck, the American Civil War has not fully
ended 150 years later...

As an "Ohio boy" who lived for a while in the South, I can vouch for that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 13:39:25 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:55:19 +0700, John B
wrote:


Recently the Bangkok Post published the results of a survey made by
Mahadol University's Institute for Population and Social Research
which compares Generation X, those born between 1961 and 1981 with the
Y generation born between 1982 and 2005.

Wait, I only missed being a Gen X-er by two years? WTF!

The study shows that the older generation prefers working in
challenging but possibly risky situations while the younger generation
do not like placing themselves in risky situations.

Or, perhaps to put in more graphic terms, the older folks are brave
and stalwart individuals while the youngsters are timid and
fainthearted. Which, of course, explains the modern helmet fetish.

Given that the most stalwart helmet wearers I know are baby boomers and
Gen X-ers, while most of the people I see cycling without helmets appear
to be Gen Y or Millenials, it seems to me that the data does not
transfer to Minnesota...

I don't know whether the data actually transfers at all :-) as it is
probably true that the perception of danger varies considerably
between sectors of a society. Between rural and city environments, for
example.

On the other hand it does seem to fit what I see here. I mentioned by
teen age granddaughter who's father still walks her to the bus stop.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 15:43:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 6:55:25 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
Recently the Bangkok Post published the results of a survey made by
Mahadol University's Institute for Population and Social Research
which compares Generation X, those born between 1961 and 1981 with the
Y generation born between 1982 and 2005.

The study shows that the older generation prefers working in
challenging but possibly risky situations while the younger generation
do not like placing themselves in risky situations.

Or, perhaps to put in more graphic terms, the older folks are brave
and stalwart individuals while the youngsters are timid and
fainthearted. Which, of course, explains the modern helmet fetish.
--
cheers,

John B.

Geez John, do you ALWAYS have to jab the hampster with a stick?

Of course. I find it much more fun than a continuous recounting of how
bicycle companies (TREK annual sales in the 1 billion dollar range)
are stupid and don't make what people really want to buy.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 15:52:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 12:01:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:48:52 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 09-29-2016 20:55, John B. wrote:
The study shows that the older generation prefers working in
challenging but possibly risky situations while the younger generation
do not like placing themselves in risky situations.

Alternate interpretation: One generation takes too many risks, The next
generation sees the disasters that result and becomes afraid of risk.

What disasters?

You mean the 700-something people that died riding a bicycle? Compared
with the numbers that died while walking? Or died due to falls?

The NHTSA has it that there were 4,735 pedestrian fatalities, some six
and a half times the number of bicycle fatalities. Are people afraid
of walking? Should one wear a helmet while walking?

--
cheers,

John B.

John, we're on the same side of this argument but that is a false premise. It isn't numbers killed but percentages killed and cyclists have a very high rate of injuries and deaths compared to pedestrians.

But of course MOST cyclists that are injured or killed are young and inexperienced and breaking traffic laws.

Yes. I know that and you know that but I still see the gross numbers
of inured quoted in the media as proof of this being dangerous and
that being dangerous.

As for bicycles I suspect it is because no one knows how many there
actually are being ridden. One group counts everyone who has ridden
one "at least once" during the past year as a cyclist, which is like
saying that as you got a bit tiddly during the company Christmas-New
years party you are an alcoholic.

--
cheers,

John B.

On 10-02-2016 13:44, Tim McNamara wrote:
Hmmm. It's a disaster for someone, since if there is a victor there is
also a loser. Modern war seems now to become a stalemate rather than a
victory for either side. Heck, the American Civil War has not fully
ended 150 years later...

Andorra officially ended their
WW2 declaration of war with Germany
in 1968.

--
Wes Groleau

On 10-02-2016 02:29, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 15:54:55 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 10-01-2016 11:37, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I think what's more accurate is that a small group decides on a course
of action, then engages in propaganda efforts to convince the citizens
and the legislature. By the time the country as a whole realizes the
propaganda was false, it's too late. I think there's little doubt that's
what took place before the 2nd Iraq war.

There have been allegations (I take no stand either way) that Roosevelt
knew Pearl Harbor was coming but took no action because he wanted it to
change public opinion against going to war.

According to a book written by a high ranking officer in Naval
Intelligence the Navy was well aware of the Japanese expansionism
ambitions and were aware of the naval ship building program. And that
they were aware of the makeup of the Japanese fleet and that it was
at sea and had stopped transmitting reports and were maintaining radio
silence and were estimated to be in the N. Pacific.

And certainly the U.S. government was aware that the Japanese were
extremely unhappy with the Washington Navel treaty that effectively
made them a 2nd class naval power.

None of this was any secret at all.

But whether anyone was aware that the Japanese had plans to attack the
U.S. Pacific fleet in December I don't know, but given the damage the
Japanese did I suspect that if the navy had known they would have had
the entire fleet at sea, rather than in harbor.

Again, I am not agreeing or refuting. There are whole books "proving"
it happened and others debunking it. But the allegation, as far as I
can tell from a quick skimming is that Roosevelt deliberately withheld
the intelligence from most of the military.

--
Wes Groleau

On 10-02-2016 18:06, wrote:
Joerg - that absolutely WAS NOT 34 mph (more likely 34 kph) because there's very small possibility of someone overlapping at that speed even downhill. And none of those guys were pushing hard.

I'm not sure what you are speaking of,
but I have measured 48 KPH downhill.

--
Wes Groleau