Cooler Helmet?

[Ozark Bicycle]

RonSonic wrote:
> 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.
>


Bingo!! All the wannabes know *exactly* how much the Giro Atmos costs,
that's why people buy them in the first place. And that's why they
spend even more $ to get the Lone Star or Paris special editions.


> Where's Fabs to explain this stuff to you.
>
> Ron

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]>:
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>Ozark, have you ever actually heard someone bragging about paying $189
>>for a helmet?
>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.

It seems like a simple question to me. Why not answer it?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is First Thursday, May.

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> 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.

What I said was that you often POST in a dishonest (deceitful, misleading,
disingenuous, etc. etc.) manner. Goes rather well with coming back to this
"gosh, I just want an answer" BS a full 10 days after it had already been
beaten to freaking death.

> 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.

RonSonic spelled it out for you rather concisely. Read it. Absorb it.
DROP it.

BS

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> 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.

And you'll wait 10+ days to do it (even though the question HAS been
answered by many people in the interim even if not by the original target of
your stalking behavior*)?

*might be a clue why he won't give you the satisfaction...ya think?!?

 

[[email protected]]

On 5 May 2006 08:45:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>RonSonic wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>Bingo!! All the wannabes know *exactly* how much the Giro Atmos costs,
>that's why people buy them in the first place. And that's why they
>spend even more $ to get the Lone Star or Paris special editions.
>
>
>> Where's Fabs to explain this stuff to you.
>>
>> Ron

Dear Ozark,

Here's something from Snell's FAQ that may warm your heart:

"What's the difference between this $100 Snell certified
helmet and this $400 Snell certified Helmet."

"While helmets are primarily a protective device, the true
protective capabilities of a helmet will only come into play
for about 2 to 4 milliseconds during the ownership of the
helmet. This leaves a lot of time for that helmet to be
doing nothing more than sitting around on a users head. The
Snell standards do not measure factors like comfort,
ventilation, brand recognition or style, and only indirectly
look at fit, weight, materials and workmanship. These are
factors that frequently drive helmet cost."

http://www.smf.org/faqs.html#14

I like the implication that helmets cost between $100 and
$400.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 5 May 2006 08:45:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >RonSonic wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Bingo!! All the wannabes know *exactly* how much the Giro Atmos costs,
> >that's why people buy them in the first place. And that's why they
> >spend even more $ to get the Lone Star or Paris special editions.
> >
> >
> >> Where's Fabs to explain this stuff to you.
> >>
> >> Ron
>
> Dear Ozark,
>
> Here's something from Snell's FAQ that may warm your heart:
>
> "What's the difference between this $100 Snell certified
> helmet and this $400 Snell certified Helmet."
>
> "While helmets are primarily a protective device, the true
> protective capabilities of a helmet will only come into play
> for about 2 to 4 milliseconds during the ownership of the
> helmet. This leaves a lot of time for that helmet to be
> doing nothing more than sitting around on a users head. The
> Snell standards do not measure factors like comfort,
> ventilation, brand recognition or style, and only indirectly
> look at fit, weight, materials and workmanship. These are
> factors that frequently drive helmet cost."
>


Interesting that they lump "brand recognition" in there right alongside
"comfort" and "ventilation" as a factor which may be worth paying more
for. I think that says a boatload about the helmet market.

(OTOH, whenever possible, I peel all the logos off my helmets.)

> http://www.smf.org/faqs.html#14
>
> I like the implication that helmets cost between $100 and
> $400.
>
>

Doesn't this FAQ cover motorcycle, etc., helmets as well as bicycle
helmets? Maybe that's where the $400 figure comes from. They do seem to
imply, however, that decent helmets of any sort start at the $100
level.

And, maybe Giro will introduce a 2010 "5th Anniversary Paris Edition"
Atmos in the $400 range. Made of a special blend of styrofoam and
Unobtainium. ;-)

BTW, which bicycle helmet makers still use Snell certification?

 

[[email protected]]

On 5 May 2006 12:31:28 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 5 May 2006 08:45:10 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >RonSonic wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Bingo!! All the wannabes know *exactly* how much the Giro Atmos costs,
>> >that's why people buy them in the first place. And that's why they
>> >spend even more $ to get the Lone Star or Paris special editions.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Where's Fabs to explain this stuff to you.
>> >>
>> >> Ron
>>
>> Dear Ozark,
>>
>> Here's something from Snell's FAQ that may warm your heart:
>>
>> "What's the difference between this $100 Snell certified
>> helmet and this $400 Snell certified Helmet."
>>
>> "While helmets are primarily a protective device, the true
>> protective capabilities of a helmet will only come into play
>> for about 2 to 4 milliseconds during the ownership of the
>> helmet. This leaves a lot of time for that helmet to be
>> doing nothing more than sitting around on a users head. The
>> Snell standards do not measure factors like comfort,
>> ventilation, brand recognition or style, and only indirectly
>> look at fit, weight, materials and workmanship. These are
>> factors that frequently drive helmet cost."
>>
>
>
>Interesting that they lump "brand recognition" in there right alongside
>"comfort" and "ventilation" as a factor which may be worth paying more
>for. I think that says a boatload about the helmet market.
>
>(OTOH, whenever possible, I peel all the logos off my helmets.)
>
>> http://www.smf.org/faqs.html#14
>>
>> I like the implication that helmets cost between $100 and
>> $400.
>>
>>
>
>Doesn't this FAQ cover motorcycle, etc., helmets as well as bicycle
>helmets? Maybe that's where the $400 figure comes from. They do seem to
>imply, however, that decent helmets of any sort start at the $100
>level.
>
>And, maybe Giro will introduce a 2010 "5th Anniversary Paris Edition"
>Atmos in the $400 range. Made of a special blend of styrofoam and
>Unobtainium. ;-)
>
>BTW, which bicycle helmet makers still use Snell certification?

Dear Oz,

You're probably right about the $100-$400 being for the more
elaborate hard-shell motorcycle helmets--good point.

As for who still uses Snell certification . . .

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission bike helmet standard
is required by law in the US. Some of the Snell Memorial
Foundation standards are a bit more difficult to pass, but
are not often used."

http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm#CPSC

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
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.

Though my name is in an attribution, none of the words are mine.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> 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

Hurling? Will I crack my head open on the porcelain?

--
Michael Press

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Hurling? Will I crack my head open on the porcelain?
>
>

When hurling isn't one feeling like they're "fixin' to die" anyway?

 

[Dan Connelly]

Sorni wrote:

> The fact is the potential damage to my head if it whaps a rock or a curb is
> substantial, so I choose to wear protection to lessen that damage to a
> certain degree. The fact that crashing is a good deal more likely on a
> knobby-tired bike (on rough terrain) than on a skinny-tired one over
> pavement is irrelevant. Hard is hard.
>
> It's really not that complicated.
>

Your logic leads me to believe you wear a helmet when walking, and showering, and
traveling in a car.

The only reason it isn't complicated is because you're a simpleton.

 

[Sorni]

Dan Connelly wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> The fact is the potential damage to my head if it whaps a rock or a
>> curb is substantial, so I choose to wear protection to lessen that
>> damage to a certain degree. The fact that crashing is a good deal
>> more likely on a knobby-tired bike (on rough terrain) than on a
>> skinny-tired one over pavement is irrelevant. Hard is hard.
>>
>> It's really not that complicated.
>>
>
> Your logic leads me to believe you wear a helmet when walking, and
> showering, and traveling in a car.

Now you're just being silly.

> The only reason it isn't complicated is because you're a simpleton.

Why must you say such hurtful (and completely illogical) things?

Bill "show up again in another six years, whoever you are" S.

 

[Chalo]

RonSonic wrote:
>
> dabac wrote:
> >
> >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.

The thing is, you can say the same for knee and elbow pads, a
mouthpiece, a leather jacket, sturdy knee-high boots, chest protector,
high-impact goggles, lumbar support belt, earplugs, etc., etc. Nobody
believes these measures are de rigeur for cycling, even though they
would undoubtedly prevent many injuries.

They would also be uncomfortable, and in some cases would even expose
the rider to risk of accidents that would not have occurred were it not
for the "safety" gear. They would discourage many people from
participating in cycling to begin with, and they would make
non-cyclists regard cyclists as lunatics and daredevils.

Just like helmets!

Every time I talk to my mom these days, she leans on me to do my
commuting by car. Although she's never said so directly, I believe
it's the media focus on the importance of bicycle helmets that has
convinced her that cycling to work is too dangerous for me to do.
/That/ is lunacy. And it is the direct result of marketing bicycle
helmets through fear.

Chalo Colina

 

[41]

Sorni wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:
> >
> >> The fact is the potential damage to my head if it whaps a rock or a
> >> curb is substantial, so I choose to wear protection to lessen that
> >> damage to a certain degree. The fact that crash ing is a good deal
> >> more likely on a knobby-tired bike (on rough terrain) than on a
> >> skinny-tired one over pavement is irrelevant. Hard is hard.
> >>
> >> It's really not that complicated.
> >>
> >
> > Your logic leads me to believe you wear a he lmet when walking, and
> > showering, and traveling in a car.
>
> Now you're just being silly.

That is what happens when someone follows your logic.


> > The only reason it isn't complicated is because you're a simpleton.
>
> Why must you say such hurtful (and completely illogical) things?

Well, you did support Bush, i.e. you failed a major IQ test. On top of
that, your posts, though frequent, are content-free.
n

 

[Ed Pirrero]

41 wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
> >
> >
> > Now you're just being silly.
>
> That is what happens when someone follows your logic.
>
>
> > > The only reason it isn't complicated is because you're a simpleton.
> >
> > Why must you say such hurtful (and completely illogical) things?
>
> Well, you did support Bush, i.e. you failed a major IQ test. On top of
> that, your posts, though frequent, are content-free.

Now, now. To be precise (and concise) they are "succinctly
content-free."

HAND,

E.P.

 

[Sorni]

41 wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Dan Connelly wrote:
>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact is the potential damage to my head if it whaps a rock or a
>>>> curb is substantial, so I choose to wear protection to lessen that
>>>> damage to a certain degree. The fact that crash ing is a good deal
>>>> more likely on a knobby-tired bike (on rough terrain) than on a
>>>> skinny-tired one over pavement is irrelevant. Hard is hard.
>>>>
>>>> It's really not that complicated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your logic leads me to believe you wear a he lmet when walking, and
>>> showering, and traveling in a car.
>>
>> Now you're just being silly.
>
> That is what happens when someone follows your logic.

To absurd conclusions maybe.

>>> The only reason it isn't complicated is because you're a simpleton.
>>
>> Why must you say such hurtful (and completely illogical) things?
>
> Well, you did support Bush, i.e. you failed a major IQ test. On top of
> that, your posts, though frequent, are content-free.
> n

Says the brave anonymous guy with strange artifacts at the end of most of
HIS thankfully-succinct posts. While my IQ may not approach amazing
Brooksian levels, it's well above sea-level, TYVM. Just because I don't
like to spew paragraphs upon paragraphs of self-indulgent blather just to
read my own pearls of pseudo wisdom doesn't mean I ain't got none.

What would you have done if it had been Tom Delay who'd been busted for a
DWI at 3 AM this week? Spewed gobs of your hate-filled drivel, yes?

You guys are so predictable. Attack anyone who's conservative. Or who
thinks wearing a helmet while riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea. And
make it personal because you're so emotionally invested in your own narrow
"intellectual" viewpoints.

Happy Friday!

 

[Sorni]

http://www.ed.pirrero.youaremighty.com/

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sorni" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> You guys are so predictable. Attack anyone who's conservative. Or who
> thinks wearing a helmet while riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea. And
> make it personal because you're so emotionally invested in your own narrow
> "intellectual" viewpoints.

I want to see the article that supports this assertion:
`Attack anyone [...] who thinks wearing a helmet while
riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea'. Seriously.

--
Michael Press

 

[Sorni]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> You guys are so predictable. Attack anyone who's conservative. Or
>> who thinks wearing a helmet while riding a bike "seriously" is a
>> good idea. And make it personal because you're so emotionally
>> invested in your own narrow "intellectual" viewpoints.
>
> I want to see the article that supports this assertion:
> `Attack anyone [...] who thinks wearing a helmet while
> riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea'. Seriously.

Just look at the guy's post who attacked Mike Jacoubowski for "lying" to his
customers because he insists they wear lids for test rides in order to give
them "a bit" of protection.

Instead of saying he disagrees or otherwise questioning/objecting to the
practice, he name-calls him.

Just one example of thousands.

Bill "and yes, Mikey, there ARE anti-helmet zealots" S.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sorni" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> You guys are so predictable. Attack anyone who's conservative. Or
> >> who thinks wearing a helmet while riding a bike "seriously" is a
> >> good idea. And make it personal because you're so emotionally
> >> invested in your own narrow "intellectual" viewpoints.
> >
> > I want to see the article that supports this assertion:
> > `Attack anyone [...] who thinks wearing a helmet while
> > riding a bike "seriously" is a good idea'. Seriously.
>
> Just look at the guy's post who attacked Mike Jacoubowski for "lying" to his
> customers because he insists they wear lids for test rides in order to give
> them "a bit" of protection.
>
> Instead of saying he disagrees or otherwise questioning/objecting to the
> practice, he name-calls him.
>
> Just one example of thousands.

No, it is not. He did not attack someone for choosing to
wear a helmet. Since there are thousands you can find a
quote that unambiguously supports you.

I want to see a quote that supports your thesis that there
are `anti-helmet zealots'.

--
Michael Press