Cooler Helmet?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 24 Apr 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "What does Lance (etc.)
> ride?". And a conspicuous consumption
> issue: "Mine cost $189.99, what
>did yours cost?".

Have you ever heard someone say either of these things?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 24 Apr 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Helmets have become a fashion statement: "What does Lance (etc.)
>ride?". And a conspicuous consumption issue: "Mine cost $189.99, what
>did yours cost?".

Yeah, for sure some people are into fashion, but have you really heard
someone bragging about spending $189 for a helmet?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 24 Apr 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Helmets have become a fashion statement: "What does Lance (etc.)
>ride?". And a conspicuous consumption issue: "Mine cost $189.99, what
>did yours cost?".

I find it hard to believe someone would brag so explicitly about
spending so mucht. Have you actually heard someone say that?

I've asked you this question a number of times and am surprised you
won't or can't answer it. Is that because you made the story up?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 4 May 2006 19:17:07 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>You seem to have snipped all the prior content and context,

OK, below is the question with the enitrety of your post with my
question below that. Now will you answer it? If not, a reasonable
person would think it's because you have something to hide, such as
that you were grossly exagerrating or lying and don't want to dig a
deeper hole.


On 24 Apr 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> > Helmet fit is the first criteria. After that ventilation, then color.
>> > Spending more doesn't increase protection, just comfort.
>>
>> Right. In fact, spending more almost always gets you _less_
>> protection. More holes, less styrofoam, less impact protection. The
>> most expensive helmets are the ones that barely pass the already low
>> certification standards.
>>
>> Not that the advertisements will ever make _that_ clear!
>>
>>
>
>Not to mention the fact that "more holes" doesn't necessarily equate to
>better ventilation when actually riding (i.e., when there is actual
>airflow). Nor does it necessarily equate to lighter weight (styrofoam
>is pretty darn light, and the high-end, minimalist helmets are
>necessarilly reinforced with heavier materials for structural reasons).
>
>Helmets have become a fashion statement: "What does Lance (etc.)
>ride?". And a conspicuous consumption issue: "Mine cost $189.99, what
>did yours cost?".
>
>IMO, spending close to $200 for a styrofoam and thin plastic shell
>bucket that costs ~$10-15 (at most!) to manufacture and package is the
>height of consumer suckerism.
>
>IMO, YMMV (especially if you bought a "high-end" helmet ;-> ), etc.,
>etc., etc.


Ozark, have you ever actually heard someone bragging about spending
$189 for a helmet?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 4 May 2006 19:17:07 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>You seem to have snipped all the prior content and context, so I'm sure
>I just don't know *what* you are going on about, lil' Johnny.

I don't see what the context has to do with a simple questin of fact,
but if adding it back makes you more comfortable answering the
question, then here it is -- the full text of your post with a
question underneath.

I hope you do answer. It's a simple question.

JT

On 24 Apr 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> > Helmet fit is the first criteria. After that ventilation, then color.
>> > Spending more doesn't increase protection, just comfort.
>>
>> Right. In fact, spending more almost always gets you _less_
>> protection. More holes, less styrofoam, less impact protection. The
>> most expensive helmets are the ones that barely pass the already low
>> certification standards.
>>
>> Not that the advertisements will ever make _that_ clear!
>>
>>
>
>Not to mention the fact that "more holes" doesn't necessarily equate to
>better ventilation when actually riding (i.e., when there is actual
>airflow). Nor does it necessarily equate to lighter weight (styrofoam
>is pretty darn light, and the high-end, minimalist helmets are
>necessarilly reinforced with heavier materials for structural reasons).
>
>Helmets have become a fashion statement: "What does Lance (etc.)
>ride?". And a conspicuous consumption issue: "Mine cost $189.99, what
>did yours cost?".
>
>IMO, spending close to $200 for a styrofoam and thin plastic shell
>bucket that costs ~$10-15 (at most!) to manufacture and package is the
>height of consumer suckerism.
>
>IMO, YMMV (especially if you bought a "high-end" helmet ;-> ), etc.,
>etc., etc.

Ozark, have you actually heard someone bragging about spending $189
for a helmet?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Helmets have become a fashion statement: "What does Lance (etc.)
>> ride?". And a conspicuous consumption issue: "Mine cost $189.99, what
>> did yours cost?".

> Have you ever heard someone bragging in that way, or are you just
> making it up to illustrate a point?

OMG, I thought my server was acting up an re-posting stuff from a week ago.
(It really has done that before.)

Why on earth would you come back to this **** -- not just once or twice but
at least 8 or 9 times that I've seen so far?!?

Give it a freaking rest.

Bill "stalk much?" S.

PS: LOOK AT THE POSTING DATES. TEN WHOLE DAYS HAVE PASSED. (Note to self:
check to see if someone is impersonating JFT. He may be a *****, but not
usually this unstable.)

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 23:53:49 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Re-read the thread, John. Again.
>
> You are the one that cannot read -- you have had to admit missing a
> word that had major meaning in one of my sentences, and then I had to
> point out to you that you were inserting a word into the sentence (a
> *simple* word -- the word "you") that simply wasn't there, thus
> changing the meaning.
>
> So I ask you to, in the future, please re-read what I write several
> times before coming to any conclusions about my meaning -- I think you
> have demonstrated a need to take that level of care.

What a friggin' bulldog you are. If I ignore you for well over a week like
Ozark did, will you then post, like TEN follow-ups to me, too?!?

The reason I said to re-read the thread is that my missing your use of the
word "chance" had absolutely nothing to do with the subsequent ridiculous
argument that ensued. (I had one reply to Greg, IIRC, before "getting" your
intrusive, needless, uninvited reply to me.) RE-READ IT BEFORE IT EXPIRES.

I still say bouncing a head off a rock or a curb are equally unpleasant
events, ones I hope to at least mitigate with the wearing of a helmet. My
relative chances of suffering such an unfortunate scenario in the repsective
activities (off-road and on) don't affect MY choice to use a lid for both
types of riding.

It's really not that complicated! {tm}

:-D <eg> 8-o ;-)

 

[dabac]

Michael Press wrote:
... Helmets do nothing except protect one from minor
injuries such as cuts and bruises.

And what looked much like "minor cuts and bruises" was quite sufficient to damage one of my facial nerves. One quarter of my face and part of my mouth was numb for 3 months and could very well have remained that way.
So what if the helmet doesn't always save your life, there's a lot of other injuries that you'd rather not have that it can protect you from.

 

[dabac]

In South Texas, the sun is broiling my brain in the styrofoam and
plastic helmet I bought despite the air vents through it. Can anyone
recommend a different helmet that won't have me struggling with heat
exhaustion quite so quickly?

Maybe not the most elegant approach, but riding in Crete several years back we tied a piece of cloth over the helmets and soaked these in water. Made quite a difference. And as they dried out it was fairly easy to splash on some more from the bike bottle. Bicycle clothes are not exactly considered haute couture by the general public anyway, so sewing up a couple of dedicated helmet covers in the stretchy material of your choice is fairly easy and won't have much impact on your overall aestethics as far as any bystanders are concerned. And if your riding buddies complain - well then they aren't much in the way of buddies, are they?

 

[dabac]

When people believe that a stationary
topple is likely to be really serious, people have been thoroughly
duped.

But the most likely outcome is only that, the most likely. Simply because you've taken umpteen tumbles before and never bruised anything except your ego is no guarantee that the next will follow the same pattern.
Granted, wearing a walking helmet seems OTT, but for most dynamic sports I'd gladly wear one.

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 17:31:28 +1000, dabac
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] Wrote:
>> When people believe that a stationary
>> topple *is likely* to be really serious, people have been thoroughly
>> duped.
>
>But the most likely outcome is only that, the most likely. Simply
>because you've taken umpteen tumbles before and never bruised anything
>except your ego is no guarantee that the next will follow the same
>pattern.
>Granted, wearing a walking helmet seems OTT, but for most dynamic
>sports I'd gladly wear one.

Dear Dabac,

Sorry, but I can't resist . . .

"For most dynamic sports I'd gladly wear one."

Jogging? Tennis? Square-dancing?

Curling on rock-hard, slippery ice?

Olympic sprinters reach 27 mph about two-thirds of the way
down the track.

What about hurdles?

And, of course, there's driving a car. Not exactly a sport,
but cars involve far more head injuries than bicycling.

And if everyone had to have a helmet to travel in a car,
then everyone could be forced to wear a helmet everywhere.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but . . .

Unbelievably, over 30,000 school children were forced to
wear helmets and walk to school in Japan for five years (no
bicycling allowed, no buses):

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/jpeds.html

Luckily, the researchers concluded that there was no
significant benefit.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 06:15:55 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Helmets have become a fashion statement: "What does Lance (etc.)
>>> ride?". And a conspicuous consumption issue: "Mine cost $189.99, what
>>> did yours cost?".
>
>> Have you ever heard someone bragging in that way, or are you just
>> making it up to illustrate a point?
>
>OMG, I thought my server was acting up an re-posting stuff from a week ago.
>(It really has done that before.)
>
>Why on earth would you come back to this **** --

Because I'd like to know the answer and Ozark hasn't answered it, or
said why he won't in a satisfactory way.

Perhaps you could ask him for me? I'd appreciate it.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 06:30:42 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> If I ignore you for well over a week like
>Ozark did, will you then post, like TEN follow-ups to me, too?!?

It's not related to Ozark ignoring me or not ignoring me -- I asked
him the question several time earlier to.

But in any case, if you say something where I have a follow-up quesion
that is informative and on-topic, I might ask it again and again. I'd
like to know the answer. I still do.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 07:06:10 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I asked him the question several time earlier to.

I meant "I asked him the question several times earlier too."

Please ask him for me.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 06:15:55 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Why on earth would you come back to this ****

One other thing. I said I want to know Ozark's answe. But you have
said I have been dishonest about things. Well, want to know Ozark's
answer is the true reason. But I'll expand upon that so you don't
think I'm being "dishonest" -- one of the reasons I want to know the
answer is because the behaviour he described is bizarre. I'm curious
to know the circumstances.

The other reason I want to know the answer is that I suspect he's
lying or exagerrating, and I'd love to hear him admit it.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[dabac]

Sorry, but I can't resist . . .

Well, feel free to ridicule if you wish, it all boils down to playing the odds and one's personal comfort level in terms of risk exposure anyhow.

The point I was trying to draw attention to was that although the probability for a bad fall is small it does regularly become a reality for someone. And the next "someone" might just as well be you or me.
Bad things does not always happen to somebody else, which otherwise seems to be the governing pattern of thought for many, many people.

I do wear a helmet when I go skating. As for curling I think that's a forced comparison particularly due to the high degree of predictability displayed in such a controlled environment.

And back in the sixties car helmets were actually marketed over here.

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 04 May 2006 22:24:39 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 24 Apr 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Helmets have become a fashion statement: "What does Lance (etc.)
>>ride?". And a conspicuous consumption issue: "Mine cost $189.99, what
>>did yours cost?".
>
>Have you ever heard someone bragging in that way, or are you just
>making it up to illustrate a point?

Dude, the whole point of spending that sort of money is so you DON'T have to be
heard bragging in that way. You just show up with the fancy hat and the carbon
fiber.

Where's Fabs to explain this stuff to you.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 16:45:37 +1000, dabac
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>G.T. Wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:
>> ... Helmets do nothing except protect one from minor
>> injuries such as cuts and bruises. And what looked much like "minor cuts and bruises" was quite sufficient
>to damage one of my facial nerves. One quarter of my face and part of my
>mouth was numb for 3 months and could very well have remained that way.
>
>So what if the helmet doesn't always save your life, there's a lot of
>other injuries that you'd rather not have that it can protect you from.

BINGO!

Now let's get the safety nazis on board and we'll be okay.

Ron

 

[[email protected]]

dabac wrote:
> [email protected] Wrote:
> > When people believe that a stationary
> > topple *is likely* to be really serious, people have been thoroughly
> > duped.
>
> But the most likely outcome is only that, the most likely.

Sorry, but there are degrees of likelihood. In this case (toppling off
a stationary bike) the likelihood of serious injury is infinitesmal.
You may as well worry about meteorites hitting your head.

> Simply
> because you've taken umpteen tumbles before and never bruised anything
> except your ego is no guarantee that the next will follow the same
> pattern.

We're talking about a statistical phenomenon, and in general,
statistics will tell you nothing is guaranteed. Just because you've
descended stairs 75.000 times in your life without tripping and landing
on your head, is no guarantee that the next descent will follow the
same pattern. Yet that fact is apparently insufficient grounds for
promoting stairway helmets.

When you look at the experience of cyclists around the world over the
decades since 1890, stationary topples that cause serious head injuries
are doubtlessly far less common than stair descents causing serious
head injuries. Yet bike helmets tested and certified only to
"stationary topple" standards are touted as life savers.

> Granted, wearing a walking helmet seems OTT, but for most dynamic
> sports I'd gladly wear one.

Tennis? Jogging? Playing tag? Tell us, for which of these do you
wear your helmet?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

dabac wrote:
> [email protected] Wrote:
> > Sorry, but I can't resist . . .
>
> Well, feel free to ridicule if you wish, it all boils down to playing
> the odds and one's personal comfort level in terms of risk exposure
> anyhow.
>
> The point I was trying to draw attention to was that although the
> probability for a bad fall is small it does regularly become a reality
> for *someone*. And the next "someone" might just as well be you or me.

But you seem to feel that way only about cycling! Why be so
anti-cycling? You do understand, I hope, that cycling causes only a
tiny percentage of America's serious head injuries!

> Bad things does not always happen to somebody else, which otherwise
> seems to be the governing pattern of thought for many, many people.
>
> I do wear a helmet when I go skating.

Let me guess: you're like most folks, who might consider a helmet for
rollerblading, but would never wear one ice skating. That just isn't
fashionable. Right?

> As for curling I think that's a
> forced comparison particularly due to the high degree of predictability
> displayed in such a controlled environment.

Still, there are so many "dynamic" sports for which ordinary people, at
least, see no need of helmets. Volleyball? Ping pong? Handball?
Soccer (or football)? Rugby? Hurling? Running? Hiking? Which of
these do you

> And back in the sixties car helmets were actually marketed over here.

They don't need to be marketed specifically for cars. Motorcycle
helmets or bike helmets would certainly offer significant protection.

I'm assuming you wear one, based on your logic, because I'm sure you
know the largest percentage of serious head injuries still occur inside
cars.

If not, I'm curious why you'd choose not to improve your chances when
you play those odds!

- Frank Krygowski