Grant refers to this helmet guy for some reason

[eflayer]

not sure what the points of view are, but this guy, to me, is an hot
air baloon....full of hot air. Not even considering his point of view
about helmets, just how arrrogant he sounds/is:

http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael-colville-andersen

[grrlyrida]

That's funny. I thought I was the only one who felt that way about
MCA. I only had to go on his blog once to figure that out. However
he's very popular on the cycling blogosphere. I could only sit through
the vid for a few minutes before I turned it off.

[Montclair BobbyB]

Wow... that's 10 minutes I'll never get back...

[rperks]

The points of view were the fact that cycling statistcly appears safer
then ever as a mode of local travel, and that the culture of fear sold
by the helmet salesmen is a detrement to the spread of cycling to more
people. Likewise if the level of marketing helmets to activites
statisticly more dangerous than cycling: driving or walking, that we
think it would be silly?

Not sure what rubs you wrong about his delivery. Likewise his blog,
http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/ , an dthe cycling chic seems to
rub people wrong. This again confuses me as to why showing regular
people dressed smartly using bikes to get around town is a bad
thing.

To me it sounds like he is pushing knowledge to trump marketing and
fear?

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Rob

[cyclotourist]

Only one real MCA!  :-)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

--
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA

...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would probably benefit more from
improving their taste than from improving their performance. - RTMS

[james black]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 17:39, rperks <perk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure what rubs you wrong about his delivery.  Likewise his blog,
> http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/ , an dthe cycling chic seems to
> rub people wrong.  This again confuses me as to why showing regular
> people dressed smartly using bikes to get around town is a bad
> thing.

I don't have particularly strong feelings about helmet use, and have
no inclination to discuss the subject of helmets in an online forum;
but his blog offends me, and I'm happy to explain why. He objectifies
women! He is, in essence, a professional pornographer, exploiting
people for his own self-promotion.

James Black
Los Angeles, CA

[charlie]

Whoa there.........there is a huge difference between showing fine
women (and men too) riding bicycles in public (well dressed I might
add) and what you are referring too.....a completely unfair
comparison. I grew up in a generation where cycling was normally done
sans Styrofoam as did millions before me. Somehow millions survived.
I will add further that statistics can be manipulated quite easily
for any desired effect, especially to the average citizen who hasn't
had a single, simple, college class in statistics. An interesting
example when comparing fighting sports and rates of brain damage to
boxers using heavily padded gloves and cage fighters using (almost) no
protective gloves. You 'd think cage fighters would have higher levels
of cumulative brain injury but they don't because the don't get hit as
many times as a boxer typically does. I listened to the whole video
and he didn't strike me as being arrogant but rather entertaining and
easy to listen to. So glad I still live in America........the land of
the free and the home of the brave.

On Mar 15, 5:59 pm, james black <chocot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 17:39, rperks <perks....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not sure what rubs you wrong about his delivery.  Likewise his blog,

> >http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/, an dthe cycling chic seems to

[David Faller]

Oh, can't we just talk about rake/trail or toe clip overlap instead...

[Mike S]

I love it when out of shape, middle-aged white guys who smoke,drink
and watch football (see: Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy WITH
helmets) tell me how I'm reckless riding without a helmet. I thought
the guys tone was rather high on the smug-o-meter as well, but he
brings up good points about biking being no more dangerous than
walking and far less dangerous than driving.

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:59 PM, james black <choc...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...] 

but his blog offends me, and I'm happy to explain why. He objectifies
women! He is, in essence, a professional pornographer, exploiting
people for his own self-promotion.

What exactly does "objectify" mean? Never was sure.

Do you mean the blog about pretty young women in high fashion riding bikes? Rather light fare, I opine, but why worse than showing roadies in 2011 spring cycling fashions (lifted *that* term from the latest Co Cycl Cat) on the latest crabon wonders? Is it because the audience is probably men? But why should looking at pretty girls be bad, even if they are on bicycles?

I smell, nay, hear, discern and anticipate the impending, ineluctible, overawing and highly terrible roar of a mons parturating a mus. 

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW at patric...@resumespecialties.com

[PATRICK MOORE]

Damn, Jim, it's about time someone had the courage to raise this highly troublesome subject; moral standards in this our little world of odd, retro bike geekdom are tumbling fast. 

Patrick "Sarah Palin for President -- as long as she promises complete silence for four years: Moore

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thil...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have nothing against professional photographers or exploiting people, but I am greatly offended by the shameless portrayal of internal gear hubs and chain guards as sensible for transportation bikes! Both of these cause me lots of trouble on a daily basis!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[newenglandbike]

Can't comment on the speaker's delivery, but what does that matter?
I pretty much agreed with most of what the guy said, that is, to
get people on bicycles, you don't want to force them to wear a helmet
and imply that they are doing something more dangerous than
driving. Conversely, the overbearing prevalence of private-
automobile culture could probably be combatted effectively by
enforcing a strict automobile helmet law.

'Copenhagencyclechic' and it's sister-sites across the web represent
exactly the kind of campaign bicycling needs-- something that appeals
to peoples' (women and men's) sense of freedom and individuality (and
vanity), and incidentally the idea of bicycling for utility/
transportation rather than for sport or recreation. The bottom line
is, the energy-rich, complacent people (not saying this is ALL people)
of the industrialized world aren't going to hop on bikes because of
Peak
Oil or 390ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and the hotter, more barren
planet that we have created and will leave to the next generation.
But if you appeal to their sense of vanity, you could make some
headway. This is exactly what the automobile industry does to sell
cars- and they know what they are doing.


-Matt

On Mar 16, 12:33 am, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Damn, Jim, it's about time someone had the courage to raise this highly
> troublesome subject; moral standards in this our little world of odd, retro
> bike geekdom are tumbling fast.
>
> Patrick "Sarah Palin for President -- as long as she promises complete
> silence for four years: Moore
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <
>

> thill....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have nothing against professional photographers or exploiting people, but
> > I am greatly offended by the shameless portrayal of internal gear hubs and
> > chain guards as sensible for transportation bikes! Both of these cause me
> > lots of trouble on a daily basis!
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
> --
> Patrick Moore
> Albuquerque, NM
> For professional resumes, contact

> Patrick Moore, ACRW at patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Well said, Matt. A very stylish former girlfriend, who has little or no interest in bikes, fell in love with an Electra Amsterdam purely as a fashion accessory. In the end she decided that spending $500 on a bike was out of the question (she can buy decent earrings with that kind of money!)

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jan Heine <hei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> At Bicycle Quarterly, we are considering looking at the statistics and
> figuring out whether helmets make riding safer, whether risk compensation
> really is a factor, etc. I believe there is a need for real data, rather
> than opinion, on the subject. It's not that hard to figure this out,
> especially when you compare different countries and populations. But of
> course, like most quasi-religious topics, it would be a hotly debated issue.
> What do you guys think?
>

It is one of my least favorite topics to read about in any forum.

Please don't include it. It just stirs up trouble and gets no one anywhere good.

If writing about that takes away from testing a new or old bike or
being able to research another piece of history then I think BQ will
be poorer for it.

thank you,
-sv

[Brett Lindenbach]

Antihelmetites, nobody is telling you what to do, wear, or think.  You are free to crack your heads open...or not.  Personally, I do wear a helmet and wish there were more and better options out there, things I wouldn't mind wearing or notice when I have it on.  As for the Danish guy, he struck me as a self-important d0u¢heb@g.  Can I say that here?

[PATRICK MOORE]

This kind of analysis, even of existing statistical data, would greatly help set the record straight about (1) the danger of cycling and (2) the protective usefulness of helmets -- the questions are related but different. I would very much like to see it.

I base my own abandonment of helmets partly on what I've seen of statistical analysis, partly on anecdotal evidence, ie, personal experience: I lived and rode for seven or eight years as a boy and teenager in countries where traffic was far, far more chaotic than in the west and where infrastructures were far, far worse, and I saw exactly one serious bike accident and that one did not, as far as I could tell, involve a head injury and a helmet would have made no difference at all to the outcome. Moreover, for generations we've considered cycling a pastime very suitable for young, inexperienced children -- who would have thought of helmets for child cyclists in 1960? Were moms of my mother's generation just stupid or ill informed? I would very much like to know whether my personal impressions are correct or not.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Jan Heine <hei...@earthlink.net> wrot

 

At Bicycle Quarterly, we are considering looking at the statistics and figuring out whether helmets make riding safer, whether risk compensation really is a factor, etc. I believe there is a need for real data, rather than opinion, on the subject. It's not that hard to figure this out, especially when you compare different countries and populations. But of course, like most quasi-religious topics, it would be a hotly debated issue. What do you guys think?

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact

Patrick Moore, ACRW at patric...@resumespecialties.com

[PATRICK MOORE]

I strongly disagree with Seth here -- no offense meant, but BQ could do a very great service to the debate, which won't go away.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM, PATRICK MOORE <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I strongly disagree with Seth here -- no offense meant, but BQ could do a
> very great service to the debate, which won't go away.
>

I think there is no such thing as 'service to the debate'.

I do not think the undecided are reading BQ and the decided aren't
going to be swayed one way or the other.

I think the great majority of everyone would be benefited by just
walking away from it.

-sv

[Kelly Sleeper]

I think style of riding is important as well.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Jan Heine <hei...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> to get people on bicycles, you don't want to force them to wear a helmet
>> and imply that they are doing something more dangerous than driving.
>

> The same arguments were made when Preston Tucker wanted to include seatbelts in his cars. His board thought it implied that Tucker cars were unsafe. (Instead, it was Volvo who introduced seatbelts. I guess they weren't afraid that their cars might be considered unsafe.)
>
> Today, most of us use seatbelts, because we are aware of the risks of driving. Seatbelts don't keep people from driving. It seems to make little sense to pretend that riding bikes is risk-free. Do we really want to foster a teenage-like feeling of invincibility in cyclists? (Like my neighbor 20 years ago, who took up cycling in middle age. She loved it, riding against the flow of traffic, helmet-free on an old bike with no real brakes.)
>
> The bigger issue that nobody addresses is simple: A seatbelt or a helmet is your last line of defense. Accident avoidance through competent driving/riding is a much more important component of your safety. With cars, our focus on technology over driver education has had the U.S. slip from the safest country for drivers to one of the least safe. (However, that statistic in the NY Times was per driver, not per miles, and Americans drive more... so one might want to correct for that.)

>
> At Bicycle Quarterly, we are considering looking at the statistics and figuring out whether helmets make riding safer, whether risk compensation really is a factor, etc. I believe there is a need for real data, rather than opinion, on the subject. It's not that hard to figure this out, especially when you compare different countries and populations. But of course, like most quasi-religious topics, it would be a hotly debated issue. What do you guys think?
>

> Jan Heine
> Editor
> Bicycle Quarterly
> http://www.bikequarterly.com
>
> Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/

[Steve Palincsar]

Personally, I am absolutely sick of Helmet Wars. I think the entire
issue is ridiculous, stupid even, and I can't stand to hear the
arguments endlessly repeated. And I usually don't take part in such
discussions. However...

Statistical arguments are absolutely meaningless when something freakish
happens -- for example, when the Kamikaze Squirrel decided to run
through my front wheel yesterday. There I was, riding down the road at
around 13 mph, perfect pavement, no traffic within a mile of me in
either direction, a friend riding about a car length behind me, when I
see a blur of motion in my peripheral vision down and to the right, and
simultaneously hear a shout behind me and a loud PING from my front
wheel.

Good job I had a 36 spoke wheel!

The woman behind me said the squirrel bounced off my wheel, got up and
ran across the road behind me and in front of her.

In this case, nothing happened. If I'd have had a low spoke count
wheel, though, there's a possibility the squirrel could have gotten
half-way through the wheel, and gotten sucked up and locked the front
wheel, causing a header.

My wearing a helmet did not cause that squirrel to decide to run through
my front wheel. Had I not had a helmet on, it wouldn't have kept the
squirrel from running into my wheel. I didn't ride less safely because
I was wearing a helmet; had I not been wearing one, I would have done
nothing different.

The only question is this: had there been a crash, would I have been
better off with a helmet or without one? To me, the answer is obvious,
and unless someone can show me how my head would be better protected
without an energy absorbing device on top of the balaclava and cycling
cap than with one, I think these arguments are plainly idiotic.

As to the question of whether cycling is more, or less, dangerous than
driving a car -- I've been driving for over 50 years. I've been cycling
for that long as well. In that time, I've had a few car accidents;
the exact number depends on whether you count scrapes against a
concrete pillar in the parking garage or the spin-out in the snow that
left me and the car unhurt in a snow bank, but for sure one car was
definitely wrecked -- 50 mph spinout on ice into a bridge girder -- and
three others required bodywork. For all of that, I got one injury: a
torn hangnail, when I crashed into the bridge girder.

In that same time, I've had a few bicycle accidents:
- Rode into some sand at the bottom of a 3 mile long hill at around 20
mph, no helmet, got knocked senseless for a couple of minutes.
- Hit a paved over, invisible pothole and got a broken collar bone.
- Hit a root on a canal towpath, went off the towpath into the canal and
broke my shoulder.
- Had a front tire blow causing the bike to roll and auger into the
ground, got some road rash.
- Got my wheel caught in a crack between two lanes of concrete paving
that trapped the front wheel; torn clothing, road rash and a severely
scraped up helmet. Otherwise, it would have been a severely scraped up
scalp at best.
- Came over a rise and found a tree top in the road, couldn't stop, ran
over a branch and crashed. Torn clothing, dented foam in the helmet.
Better a dented helmet than a dented head, I think.
- Crashed on black ice commuting twice, no blood but pretty sore for a
few weeks.
- Jogger cut right in front of me (I yelled, he went left, I rode to the
right and as I was passing he decided to cut to the right shoulder) and
I ran him over. Bent fork and a rib that was sore for 2 months.

It seems pretty clear to me, base on my experience I've been physically
injured a lot more riding bicycles than driving a car. In most of the
crashes, the helmet wasn't a factor one way or the other; but in several
of them, it clearly made a difference between some sort of head or
facial trauma and none at all. Was it worth the money paid for helmets
over the years? Obviously, and only an idiot would say otherwise in my
humble opinion, no disrespect meant to present company, but really!

[Anne Paulson]

I could not disagree more. We need good data. Far too often the
discussion devolves to, "Well I work in a hospital and we see lots of
cyclists with head injuries," (yes, but you don't see the cyclists who
ride around for years never getting head injuries) versus, "I've
ridden around for years and gotten a serious head injury," (yes, but
if you had gotten a serious injury you would likely be incapacitated
or dead and in no position to be writing anything).

I've also seen studies that compare injury rates of helmet-wearing
cyclists versus non helmet wearers without taking into account that
helmet wearers are different in other ways than non-helmet-wearers. My
guess is that helmet wearers are the kind of cyclists who have fewer
accidents in general than non-helmet wearers. (Not you, Patrick, but
at least around here, cyclists without helmets tend to be
disproportionally drunks and deadbeats.)

I would really like to know the chance that a helmet will protect me
from an injury that I otherwise would have gotten. Maybe the range of
accidents in which a helmet makes a difference is vanishingly small--
maybe in most accidents either the helmet is unnecessary and useless,
or the helmet is too little and the cyclist dies anyway. Maybe my
helmet would protect me in a large range of accidents that I might
have. But right now, the available data isn't telling me.

Anecdotal arguments are useless. I want the numbers.

--
-- Anne Paulson

My hovercraft is full of eels

[newenglandbike]

On Mar 16, 12:10 pm, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Seatbelts don't keep people from driving.

But this analogy isn't very strong-- a seatbelt is not a helmet, and
the automobile industry is deliberately not selling/pushing helmets
(as the seminar's speaker points out), even though automobile
accidents are the leading cause of traumatic brain injury, by a long
shot.

FWIW, I'll probably read/enjoy pretty much anything you want to put in
Bicycle Quarterly- I love this rare/singular bicycling publication,
and whether I agree with the articles or not, they are always
interesting. IMHO, don't avoid something because it is a
'political third rail' so to speak. Keep up the good work!


-Matt

[Pete]

Jan, I for one use helmets every time since they've saved my bacon
more than once. No doubt a helmet will help once the accident is a
fact. But I think Mikael Colville Andersen's point is that cites does
not live up to their responsibility to offer cyclist a safe liveable
environment. Instead we are spoon fed that riding bikes are unsafe and
that it's every cyclist own responsibility, even a duty, to use a
helmet! I think we need to demand a better traffic environment, more
liveable cities and after that is done I'm prepared to discus the use
of helmets for cyclist. But sadly we are far from this goal, even in
Sweden... ; )

On Mar 16, 5:10 pm, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >  to get people on bicycles, you don't want to force them to wear a helmet
> >  and imply that they are doing something more dangerous than driving.
>
> The same arguments were made when Preston Tucker wanted to include
> seatbelts in his cars. His board thought it implied that Tucker cars
> were unsafe. (Instead, it was Volvo who introduced seatbelts. I guess
> they weren't afraid that their cars might be considered unsafe.)
>
> Today, most of us use seatbelts, because we are aware of the risks of
> driving. Seatbelts don't keep people from driving. It seems to make
> little sense to pretend that riding bikes is risk-free. Do we really
> want to foster a teenage-like feeling of invincibility in cyclists?
> (Like my neighbor 20 years ago, who took up cycling in middle age.
> She loved it, riding against the flow of traffic, helmet-free on an
> old bike with no real brakes.)
>
> The bigger issue that nobody addresses is simple: A seatbelt or a
> helmet is your last line of defense. Accident avoidance through
> competent driving/riding is a much more important component of your
> safety. With cars, our focus on technology over driver education has
> had the U.S. slip from the safest country for drivers to one of the
> least safe. (However, that statistic in the NY Times was per driver,
> not per miles, and Americans drive more... so one might want to
> correct for that.)
>

> At Bicycle Quarterly, we are considering looking at the statistics
> and figuring out whether helmets make riding safer, whether risk
> compensation really is a factor, etc. I believe there is a need for
> real data, rather than opinion, on the subject. It's not that hard to
> figure this out, especially when you compare different countries and
> populations. But of course, like most quasi-religious topics, it
> would be a hotly debated issue. What do you guys think?
>

> Jan Heine
> Editor
> Bicycle Quarterlyhttp://www.bikequarterly.com
>
> Follow our blog athttp://janheine.wordpress.com/

[robert zeidler]

Michael,
Judging by how the roads fared down here this winter, yours must have
been just destroyed.

RGZ

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM, MichaelH <mhec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My experience confirms that safety concerns are the biggest impediment
> to getting people on bicycles.  No doubt, the ubiquitous helmet
> contributes to that fear, but I am convinced that fear has two other
> deeper causes.  First, far too many roads where most commuters ride
> are unnecessarily dangerous and new riders lack the skill and moxie to
> take their share of the lane.  Second, Americans watch way too much
> TV, which is an entire industry composed of fearful, angry, unhappy
> people intent on making everyone else fearful, resentful, and
> unhappy.  There are many things that people ought to be concerned
> about, like climate change and spreading poverty, but instead, as this
> video clip pointed out, we are all encouraged to be stressed out about
> minimal or non existent dangers.  Too many people simply approach
> life, including cycling, from that place of fear.
>
> I just retired from a physically and emotionally demanding job at a
> major medical center.  Whenever I mentioned the slightest ache or pain
> I would invariably be asked or simply assumed that I had hurt myself
> commuting to work.  Yet, with a daily census of around 450 inpatients
> we probably averaged two admissions a year for cycling injuries.
>
> Promoting reason over fear is a good thing to do, but I doubt that the
> bicycle helmet is the best place to start.
>
> michael,
> not enjoying mud season in VT!

[ekoral]

As someone who bicycles everyday in a metropolitan city (SF) and also
has been in a near fatal car/bicycle accident, i use a helmet every
time i ride. People drive crazy here, and not wearing a helmet and
getting hit by a car can mean the difference between a hospital stay
and a trip to the morgue.

After spending three weeks in SF General hospital with a shattered leg
and skin grafts, and nearly a year and a half off of a bicycle, i'm
afraid to ride without one. and now, it just feels like a habit. i
understand this guy's point as far as getting cyclists on the road by
taking the "fear" out of it, but i also very much understand the use
and impact of carefully selected statistics. i'm not afraid of
cycling, i'm afraid of smashing my skull.

If you look at this website: http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm , you can
see that of all bicycle deaths in 2008, 91% were not wearing helmets,
while the other 9% were. I think that's a rather clear statistic. You
may have a low chance of actually getting in an accident on your
bicycle compared to lets say, driving a car, but if you do, it looks
as though helmets will save your life.

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM, ekoral <eko...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you look at this website: http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm , you can
see that of all bicycle deaths in 2008, 91% were not wearing helmets,
while the other 9% were. I think that's a rather clear statistic. You
may have a low chance of actually getting in an accident on your
bicycle compared to lets say, driving a car, but if you do, it looks
as though helmets will save your life.

This is exactly the kind of statistic that needs careful scrutiny: as stated, it means nothing. Please go forward, Jan.

[PATRICK MOORE]

All, particularly Seth and whoever ekoral is: Sorry, I did not mean to sound snarky. I really think Jan can do many, if not all, cyclists a great favor by intelligently analyzing the data pro and con. AFAIK, there is no comprehensive, statistically competent review of the primary statistics. 

If statistically it can be proven that helmets (1) do good and (2) are more useful on a bike than, say, walking or driving, I want to know because I will start wearing one. I am skeptical but not stupid (not *reeeeel* stoopid, anyway).

Anyway, I hope we can discuss this with a minimum of heat and a maximum of light and I again apologize for my abruptness.

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact

Patrick Moore, ACRW at patric...@resumespecialties.com

[Montclair BobbyB]

I guess one could point to examples where helmets could have made a
difference (Gary Busey, for example)... But then to be fair helmets
may not always protect one from one's actions... (Charlie Sheen, for
example).

Personally I choose to ride with a helmet, because I've endoed enough
to be thankful I was wearing one. That said, I do also cherish my
freedom to choose when NOT to wear my helmet, letting the wind flow
through my hair (even though I shave my head). But I'll passionately
defend my choice as my own, and not because I have succumbed to some
so-called "culture of fear"... RUBBISH!!!

(But I really need to be fair... I do find MCA interesting, and I
can't hold his Danish swagger against him... he's earned his street
cred, and anyone who supports urban mobility and cycling lifestyle is
OK WITH ME!!!)

...and Patrick... Please help me to appreciate "the impending,

ineluctible, overawing and highly terrible roar of a mons parturating

a mus"... :)

> > Los Angeles, CA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[PATRICK MOORE]

A mons parturating (or perhaps "cacare" is better -- "Culus tibi purior salillo est,
nec toto decies cacas in anno"; yes, I had to look that up) Charlie Sheen would be even more ridiculous. Who needs satire? God preserve us from becoming rich, famous, sexy and important or more of us would end up like him.

Anyway, this is the old proverb about a mountain straining and groaning and giving birth to a mouse: tempest in a teapot.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Montclair BobbyB <montcla...@gmail.com> wrote:

...and Patrick... Please help me to appreciate "the impending,

ineluctible, overawing and highly terrible roar of a mons parturating

a mus"... :)

[MontclairBobbyB]

Patrick;

 

I'm sure I've already told you this, but I'll be first in line at your book signing... you are indeed fun to read.  (In fact if you have a reason to travel East, you should consider joining us for Riv Rally East May 6-8... With Robert Zeidler, Steve Palincsar and Kelly Sleeper (among others) planning to attend, I expect the dialogue (in addition to the scenery) to be rather colorful...

Peace,
BB

--
"LIFE... is better, when you ride bikes"...

Bob Birmingham
Cell: (908) 303-6887

[Kelly Sleeper]

Bad enough I have to tape the keyboard now I'll have to tape my mouth to stay out of trouble.

Helmets are safer than no helmet. Fact

Hell a piece of leather is safer than nothing.

Just for me the risk is so low that I choose to not wear one at times. 

I only wear seat belts because of the damn buzzer not the law or safety 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Montclair BobbyB]

Kelly:

I hope you understand my definition of "colorful" in this context to
mean "exceptional"... Looking forward to not only a few days of great
riding (at Riv Rally East), but having a great meeting of the
minds...

(A bigger question, perhaps... Will you bring your Hilsen or your
Bomba?)

Peace,
BB

On Mar 16, 2:26 pm, Kelly Sleeper <tkslee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bad enough I have to tape the keyboard now I'll have to tape my mouth to stay out of trouble.
>
> Helmets are safer than no helmet. Fact
> Hell a piece of leather is safer than nothing.
>
> Just for me the risk is so low that I choose to not wear one at times.
>
> I only wear seat belts because of the damn buzzer not the law or safety
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

> On Mar 16, 2011, at 1:07 PM, MontclairBobbyB <montclairbob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Patrick;
>
> > I'm sure I've already told you this, but I'll be first in line at your book signing... you are indeed fun to read.  (In fact if you have a reason to travel East, you should consider joining us for Riv Rally East May 6-8... With Robert Zeidler, Steve Palincsar and Kelly Sleeper (among others) planning to attend, I expect the dialogue (in addition to the scenery) to be rather colorful...
>
> > Peace,
> > BB
>

> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:54 PM, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A mons parturating (or perhaps "cacare" is better -- "Culus tibi purior salillo est,
> > nec toto decies cacas in anno"; yes, I had to look that up) Charlie Sheen would be even more ridiculous. Who needs satire? God preserve us from becoming rich, famous, sexy and important or more of us would end up like him.
>
> > Anyway, this is the old proverb about a mountain straining and groaning and giving birth to a mouse: tempest in a teapot.
>

> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Montclair BobbyB <montclairbob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...and Patrick... Please help me to appreciate "the impending,
> > ineluctible, overawing and highly terrible roar of a mons parturating
> > a mus"... :)
>
> > --
> > Patrick Moore
> > Albuquerque, NM
> > For professional resumes, contact

> > Patrick Moore, ACRW at patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com

>
> > --
> > "LIFE... is better, when you ride bikes"...
>
> > Bob Birmingham
> > Cell: (908) 303-6887
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[PATRICK MOORE]

Shucks, 'twas nuthin, really.

More eloquent by far than I, BSNYC indulges in some amusing punditry and soul moving commentary on recent "bicycle safety rules" here: http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/

[SISDDWG]

The helmet issue is like the God issue in that you can't convince a
believer of anything. They have a deep seated need to believe or
abandon head protection.

On Mar 16, 9:10 am, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >  to get people on bicycles, you don't want to force them to wear a helmet
> >  and imply that they are doing something more dangerous than driving.
>

[NickBull]

I thought Steve Palincsar's post was the most interesting in this
thread.

I've been driving for 46 years and cycling for 56. In that time, I
have never been involved in a car crash that involved any bodily
injury whatsoever. Knock on wood. But I have been involved in quite
a few bicycle crashes, most just my own mistakes, and most causing
injuries that may have been painful but were minor enough that I was
riding again a few days later. The only serious crash (involving
broken bones) was because of another cyclist's reckless riding. I
have never been involved in a crash with a car. Again, knock on wood.

The point is just that in my personal "statistical" experience from a
lifetime of both cycling and driving, cycling is more likely to cause
minor to moderate injuries. The same seems to be true of Steve. I
wonder if it is true of others?

Along the same lines. Consider only people who you know
"personally". By that, I mean people who you've met in person, shaken
their hand or given them a hug, or at least said howdy-do, and that
you would recognize if you bumped into them in the grocery store. Not
people who you've just emailed back and forth with or heard about them
on the internet.

Among people who I know personally, I can think of none in my lifetime
who have been killed or have been seriously (and permanently) injured
in a car accident. I know of one person killed in a plane crash--a
high school classmate. I don't know anyone who has been killed or
seriously and permanently injured either as a pedestrian or hiking/
backpacking. And among people who I know personally, I know of one
person killed in a bike crash, and two people who have serious and
permanent disabilities from bike crashes.

Again, that means that in my personal "statistical" experience from a
lifetime of knowing people who cycle and drive and walk and fly places
in planes, cycling has resulted in the greatest number of deaths and
serious injuries. And I do not think that that is just selectivity
bias from having lots of cyclist friends. All but two of those
cyclist friends are also drivers, walkers, and flyers. And I have
many, many non-cyclist friends. So it seems like I should be hearing
about driving/walking/flying injuries among my non-cylist friends.

I still cycle about 10,000 miles a year, half in randonneuring and
half in daily commuting, In the last six years, I've taken the metro
only about fifteen times (the snow was three feet deep last winter),
and the rest of the time have ridden my bike to work, regardless of
weather. So I'm a committed "lifestyle" bicyclist. I've been wearing
a helmet since I crashed in the rain on my way to work in 1975 and hit
my head (downhill left turn at a traffic light where I was trying to
make the green--got a flat just as I started the turn and slid on my
side across four lanes of road). I rode to a bike store and asked if
they had helmets, and as it turns out, Bell had just introduced a bike
helmet.

Nick

[Anne Paulson]

If your argument works equally well if we substitute "being a
pedestrian" or "taking a shower" for "cycling," then you might want to
reconsider your logic.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Travis <travisbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've searched extensively as well and cannot find anything
> scientifically convincing. However, here are a couple of very simple
> questions which may be helpful:
>
> 1) Do helmets reduce the extent of head or neck injuries incurred by
> impact to the head?
> 2) Does cycling increase the likelihood of impact to the head, whether
> or not a helmet is in use?
>
> If you have a suspicion that the answer to each of these questions is
> "Yes," you should probably wear a helmet.
>
> Travis Breitenbach

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>

--

[Philip Williamson]

> >> At Bicycle Quarterly, we are considering looking at the statistics and
> >> figuring out whether helmets make riding safer, whether risk compensation
> >> really is a factor, etc. I believe there is a need for real data, rather
> >> than opinion, on the subject.

> > Please don't include it. It just stirs up trouble and gets no one anywhere good.

> I could not disagree more. We need good data. Far too often the

> discussion devolves...

+1

It sounds like BQ means to review the existing data, and analyze it
statistically. I'm all for that, but I'd like to see a sidebar in the
article on "meaningful" statistics for those of us who were only good
at the "draw pictures of the data" portion of the single simple
college Stat class we took.

This discussion could be tabled until after the article is published,
and then re-opened on the Bicycle Quarterly Readers' group (http://
groups.google.com/group/bqrr).

Philip

Philip Williamson
www.biketinker.com

[Travis]

[grant]

I included the link because I thought it was interesting. A stir, OK,
but at some point it's time to move on. The arguments FOR are well-
known. The arguments against, whether you buy them or not, get your
brain working and help you settle the issue with yourself. It is
unlikely that any discussion here will sway anybody.

Regretfully,

Grant "I own four helmets and wear them often but not always" Petersen

[Travis]

Ann, to indulge your semantic reply I will change #2:

2) Does cycling dramatically increase your risk of suffering brain
damage, death, or paralysis due to impact to the head versus
showering?

Yes, almost definitely.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Travis <travisbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ann, to indulge your semantic reply I will change #2:

2) Does cycling dramatically increase your risk of suffering brain
damage, death, or paralysis due to impact to the head versus
showering?

Yes, almost definitely.

Evidence, the world cries out aloud for evidence. Give us evidence. Amen. 

[pcooley]

I swore to myself I wouldn't jump in on this argument, but as a fellow
New Mexican, I thought I would jump in here with Patrick. Mark Twain
said that there were lies, damn lies and statistics. The problem with
this particular set of statistics is that it is only measuring one
thing.

Who do I see on the roads not wearing helmets?

Actually, they are usually not even on the roads. They're riding on
the sidewalk, often against traffic -- one of the leading causes of
bicycle/automobile crashes out there. If these statistics were taken
exclusively from, say cycling clubs, I would grant them a little more
validity in the argument.

I find the entire issue around helmet use fascinating, and I am
somewhat fascinated as well that it stirs so much anger and passion.
I'm on the fence myself. I use my helmet if I'm going to be in heavy
traffic or bicycling down mountains, but for much of my day to day
riding, I don't. I'm not passionate about it either way, but I do
think the arguments against helmet use are worth considering.

I've already responded off-list to Jan in support of a Bicycle
Quarterly article.

Paul Cooley
Santa Fe, NM

On Mar 16, 11:26 am, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM, ekoral <eko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> If you look at this website:http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm, you can

[pcooley]

I guess it's also worth pointing out that the statistics come from the
Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. That's hardly an unbiased source. I
would accept Bicycle Quarterly as being somewhat more authoritative.

[Anne Paulson]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Travis <travisbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ann, to indulge your semantic reply I will change #2:
>
> 2) Does cycling dramatically increase your risk of suffering brain
> damage, death, or paralysis due to impact to the head versus
> showering?

Here's what I want to know, and what I haven't seen compelling data
on: Will a helmet materially change my risk of damage, death or
paralysis while cycling?

Sadly, we've had some recent cyclist deaths in my area. The cyclist
fatalities I hear about are seemingly cyclists like me, cycling on
roads that I ride on. They were wearing helmets, like I do, and their
helmets failed to protect them from death.

And then I hear about other local cyclists crashing and recovering
from broken wrists, broken collar bones, broken legs-- these people
seemingly didn't hit their heads at all.

And then, I suppose, there are cyclists who crash and hit their heads,
but their helmets prevented or mitigated their injuries.

But what I want to know is, in what proportion of accidents would a
helmet make a difference? In some accidents, helmet or no helmet the
cyclist would die. In some accidents, helmet or no helmet, the cyclist
wouldn't have a head injury, or wouldn't have a head injury that made
any difference, or would have struck something with, say, their chin,
so a helmet wouldn't have helped. In some accidents, the helmet saves
the victim-- but how many accidents are like that? Don't say, one is
enough-- the danger has to be significant enough so wearing a helmet
is worth it; I don't wear a helmet when taking a shower.

[William]

1) Do helmets reduce the extent of head or neck injuries incurred by
impact to the head?

YES

2) Does getting off the couch dramatically increase your risk of

suffering brain
damage, death, or paralysis due to impact to the head versus

staying on the couch?

YES

Therefore, either stay on the couch or wear a helmet when recklessly
leaving the couch


On Mar 16, 3:11 pm, Anne Paulson <anne.paul...@gmail.com> wrote:

[pcooley]

And just one more for Jan -- how many randonneurs in the past suffered
head injuries. I don't see many helmets in those old pictures. If
there really is a strong correlation between bicycling and head
injuries, then there is sure to be some discussion of it in the
vintage literature.

[Montclair BobbyB]

(Sorry I'm getting sucked into furterh debate, but... ) honestly I
don't believe there's a legitimate argument for or against, regardless
of statistics. This comes down to a person's perception and
sensitivity to risk. Do you have tornado insurance? Flood
insurance? These choices (and they're your choices) would likely be
based on your perception of the risk that these events could occur,
versus sensitivity towards protecting your assets. Same goes for
helmets or anything that can potentially offer protection.

I "choose" to wear a helmet when I perceive there's a risk of harm to
my noggin. I don't care if helmets are declared by the leading minds
in this world as unnecessary (based on statistics)... I'd still wear
mine when I perceive potential risk of hitting my head on a low
branch, concrete sidewalk or curb. And this is based on the best
evidence I have; past experience; actually hitting my head or having
close calls.

Conversely, even if wearing helmets were regarded as the most
practical thing a cyclist can possibly do (by the so-called leading
minds, based on statistics), unless required by law I would still
cherish (and exercise) my right to ride without a helmet when I
perceive the risk to be low (and therefore I'd also willingly accept
the consequences of hitting my head). That's MY choice.

Bottom line, I don't care what statistics show, either in favor or
against, nor will I EVER. I will ignore them over my own gut intuition
between when it's right to wear or not to wear a helmet. My head, my
choice... period. And I recognize the right of every person to make
the same choice one way or the other.

Peace,
Bobby (semi-but-mostly helmeted) Birmingham



On Mar 16, 6:11 pm, Anne Paulson <anne.paul...@gmail.com> wrote:

[William]

Do I have to tell people I'm a civil libertarian if I agree
enthusiastically with Montclair Bobby B? Is there a pin I have to
wear?

On Mar 16, 3:47 pm, Montclair BobbyB <montclairbob...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Steve Palincsar]

Why is BHSI "biased," in your opinion? Because they test helmets?

[Kris]

Everyone else is chiming in.....so.....

I wear a helmet when mountain biking in my typical fashion. I ride NC
and Southeast singletrack with very steep, rocky descents as fast as I
can. I have broken more than one helmet via crashes. It would be
idiotic to not wear a helmet. I suspect even the anti-helmet crowd
would see the sense in a helmet here.

I wear a helmet when doing 'go fast' road rides. For me, in this
situation, there's no good reason not to.

I do not bother with a helmet when riding to the park, pedaling around
on a beach vacation, or even heading downtown for errands, etc.

My father on the other hand religously wears a helmet....he WILL NOT
sit on a bike without a helmet. This seems silly to me. Most of the
'mountain biking' I see on the Riv site looks perfectly fine for
helmetless riding.

IMO fighting against helmets on a widespread basis is pointless. Make
your own decisions.

Anyone been on the ski slopes recently? Talk about creating a market
out of nothing! I don't know ANYONE who has ever taken a serious
knock while skiing, but suddenly 30%+ of the market is wearing a
shell.

K

[Steve Palincsar]

On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 16:11 -0700, Kris wrote:
> Anyone been on the ski slopes recently? Talk about creating a market
> out of nothing! I don't know ANYONE who has ever taken a serious
> knock while skiing, but suddenly 30%+ of the market is wearing a
> shell.
>

"Who is Sonny Bono?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono#Death

[muckum]

Fear is one thing. Reasonable caution and preparedness is another.
Munich/ Zurich/ etc. is not Los Angeles my friends.
People here hit cycles, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. I have
encountered both first hand and I don't even commute.
Basic gear like a helmet is just common sense. It works for
motorcycles (which I do commute on). If cycling gains more support
with the public and the
infrastructure- certain basic "safety" /prevention will just be common
sense.
FYI- check out these chic alternatives.

http://outdoorurbanite.com/bike-gear/cool-bike-helmets/
http://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-gear/beret-helmet/
http://www.yakkay.com/


On Mar 15, 5:03 pm, eflayer <eddie.fla...@att.net> wrote:
> not sure what the points of view are, but this guy, to me, is an hot
> air baloon....full of hot air. Not even considering his point of view
> about helmets, just how arrrogant he sounds/is:
>
> http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael-colville-andersen

[William]

I think he's in cahoots with Natasha Richardson in the conspiracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson

[Kris]

I can state with 100% confidence I did not know Sonny Bono! ;-)

[Anne Paulson]

> Bottom line, I don't care what statistics show, either in favor or
> against, nor will I EVER. I will ignore them over my own gut intuition

I am the complete opposite-- I believe statistics-crazed sports nerd
is the term of art here. My gut would like to be informed by accurate
statistics on the increased risk posed by my cycling without a helmet,
before it supplies me with intuition on whether to wear one. My gut
already knew that some cyclists have had head injuries, and other
cyclists have not. My gut is therefore markedly unimpressed by
anecdata from neurologists who only see people with head injuries and
do not treat the many perfectlly healthy cyclists who return from
rides without having injured their heads, and equally unpersuaded by
cyclists who announce that they ride without a helmet and haven't had
a head injury.

[johnb]

Jan,

I think a objective view (as much as that can be accomplished) would
be interesting. I always look forward to the magazine, read it cover
to cover, and even if I don't agree with you I enjoy the magazine
immensely. I personally thought the Tedx video was interesting, well
done even, and caused me to ponder the subject more. While it did not
cause me to stop wearing a helmet on my commute or fast rides, I will
admit that I do ride around the neighborhood <10mph without a helmet
when just on a Sunday 'stroll.' I will keep a note on squirrels going
forward though. Who knew?

@James, if you see Momentum in your local bike store. Do NOT look at
it. You are not going to like it...

On Mar 16, 12:10 pm, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >  to get people on bicycles, you don't want to force them to wear a helmet
> >  and imply that they are doing something more dangerous than driving.
>
> The same arguments were made when Preston Tucker wanted to include
> seatbelts in his cars. His board thought it implied that Tucker cars
> were unsafe. (Instead, it was Volvo who introduced seatbelts. I guess
> they weren't afraid that their cars might be considered unsafe.)
>
> Today, most of us use seatbelts, because we are aware of the risks of
> driving. Seatbelts don't keep people from driving. It seems to make
> little sense to pretend that riding bikes is risk-free. Do we really
> want to foster a teenage-like feeling of invincibility in cyclists?
> (Like my neighbor 20 years ago, who took up cycling in middle age.
> She loved it, riding against the flow of traffic, helmet-free on an
> old bike with no real brakes.)
>
> The bigger issue that nobody addresses is simple: A seatbelt or a
> helmet is your last line of defense. Accident avoidance through
> competent driving/riding is a much more important component of your
> safety. With cars, our focus on technology over driver education has
> had the U.S. slip from the safest country for drivers to one of the
> least safe. (However, that statistic in the NY Times was per driver,
> not per miles, and Americans drive more... so one might want to
> correct for that.)
>

> At Bicycle Quarterly, we are considering looking at the statistics
> and figuring out whether helmets make riding safer, whether risk
> compensation really is a factor, etc. I believe there is a need for

> real data, rather than opinion, on the subject. It's not that hard to
> figure this out, especially when you compare different countries and
> populations. But of course, like most quasi-religious topics, it
> would be a hotly debated issue. What do you guys think?
>

[Montclair BobbyB]

Kris: How about Miranda Richardson, for starters.... Her fall didn't
seem so serious at the time it happened, but had she been wearing a
helmet she'd likely still be alive.

I'm a mountain biker and snowboarder, and I can't imagine doing either
without a helmet. THAT to me would be idiotic... think about it.
Maybe here in the East (with that famous Vermont boilerplate ice just
waitin to crack open your dome) it may seem more appropriate, even out
West I never ride without my helmet. I started wearing one after 20
years of skiing without one, and after I took a few good body slams on
my snowboard. Snow can be soft and fluffy, or as hard as concrete.

Choose wisely, my friend.
BB

[William]

"How about Miranda Richardson, for starters.... "

MBB translation App INITIATE!

When Montclair said Miranda, he meant Natasha

MBB translation App TERMINATE!


On Mar 16, 5:33 pm, Montclair BobbyB <montclairbob...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[James Valiensi]

One thing wearing a helmet will protect you from, is having to listen to folks to tell you should have a helmet on.
James Valiensi, PE
Northridge, CA
H818.775.1847 M.818.585.1796

[Montclair BobbyB]

DOH, my bad!!!!

Thanks, William (and apologies for starting rumors... Miranda is
alive and well)

You very funny...

> > > K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Travis]

Ann,

Unfortunately evidence like that is unquantifiable, so we'll never see
it. It's impossible to say for sure how bad an injury "could have
been." They only way to prove it to yourself is to have a close call
in which your helmet gets destroyed but you walk away fine. This
happened to me and turned me from an occasional helmet wearer into a
dedicated helmet wearer. It's hard to say what might have happened to
me if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, but having had multiple
concussions in the past I can sort of gauge impact severity. I believe
I avoided at least a moderate concussion, if not a skull fracture. If
I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I'm sure I would have probably lived
but would not have continued riding...

Of course, I live in NYC which is clearly a dangerous and
unpredictable place to ride. I get in an accident every once in a
while, and only once has my helmet come in handy. However, I accept
the inevitability that my head will make contact with the ground once
every decade or two and I don't want it to end my riding career. I
know several stupid bike messengers who have gotten concussions (and
have continued to ride without helmets because they are so "badass"
and risk is part of their glorified lifestyle), and I know of one
person with permanent brain damage. My guess is these injuries
wouldn't have been as severe had these fella's been wearing helmets,
but of course I can't prove it. If you ride in the country you're less
likely to get in an accident, however those accidents you do get in
are likely to be at high speeds - so maybe you'll just die outright
either way. At moderate speeds I feel helmets shine.

Anyway, it's pointless to discuss. I know no-one will be swayed since
only impossible facts will convince you. I truly hope you are never
proven wrong by personal experience.

[Bruce]

Bike crashes are not fun. Mine was like slo-mo, and my head whipped down hard onto the asphalt. My helmet cracked, my head did not. Replaced the helmet, kept the head.

---

From: Travis <travisbr...@gmail.com>
To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, March 16, 2011 7:45:51 PM
Subject: [RBW] Re: Grant refers to this helmet guy for some reason

[MichaelH]

My experience confirms that safety concerns are the biggest impediment
to getting people on bicycles. No doubt, the ubiquitous helmet
contributes to that fear, but I am convinced that fear has two other
deeper causes. First, far too many roads where most commuters ride
are unnecessarily dangerous and new riders lack the skill and moxie to
take their share of the lane. Second, Americans watch way too much
TV, which is an entire industry composed of fearful, angry, unhappy
people intent on making everyone else fearful, resentful, and
unhappy. There are many things that people ought to be concerned
about, like climate change and spreading poverty, but instead, as this
video clip pointed out, we are all encouraged to be stressed out about
minimal or non existent dangers. Too many people simply approach
life, including cycling, from that place of fear.

I just retired from a physically and emotionally demanding job at a
major medical center. Whenever I mentioned the slightest ache or pain
I would invariably be asked or simply assumed that I had hurt myself
commuting to work. Yet, with a daily census of around 450 inpatients
we probably averaged two admissions a year for cycling injuries.

Promoting reason over fear is a good thing to do, but I doubt that the
bicycle helmet is the best place to start.

michael,
not enjoying mud season in VT!

On Mar 16, 4:20 am, newenglandbike <matthiasbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't comment on the speaker's delivery, but what does that matter?
> I pretty much agreed with most of what the guy said, that is, to

> get people on bicycles, you don't want to force them to wear a helmet
> and imply that they are doing something more dangerous than

> driving.      Conversely, the overbearing prevalence of private-
> automobile culture could probably be combatted effectively by
> enforcing a strict automobile helmet law.
>
> 'Copenhagencyclechic' and it's sister-sites across the web represent
> exactly the kind of campaign bicycling needs-- something that appeals
> to peoples' (women and men's) sense of freedom and individuality (and
> vanity), and incidentally the idea of bicycling for utility/
> transportation rather than for sport or recreation.    The bottom line
> is, the energy-rich, complacent people (not saying this is ALL people)
> of the industrialized world aren't going to hop on bikes because of
> Peak
> Oil or 390ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and the hotter, more barren
> planet that we have created and will leave to the next generation.
> But if you appeal to their sense of vanity, you could make some
> headway.   This is exactly what the automobile industry does to sell
> cars-  and they know what they are doing.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Mar 16, 12:33 am, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Damn, Jim, it's about time someone had the courage to raise this highly
> > troublesome subject; moral standards in this our little world of odd, retro
> > bike geekdom are tumbling fast.
>
> > Patrick "Sarah Palin for President -- as long as she promises complete
> > silence for four years: Moore
>
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <
>
> > thill....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have nothing against professional photographers or exploiting people, but
> > > I am greatly offended by the shameless portrayal of internal gear hubs and
> > > chain guards as sensible for transportation bikes! Both of these cause me
> > > lots of trouble on a daily basis!

>
> > >  --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>

> > --
> > Patrick Moore
> > Albuquerque, NM
> > For professional resumes, contact
> > Patrick Moore, ACRW at patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com

[Travis]

Also, while out riding today. I was passed by a carload of four
teenage boys. As they passed, one reached way out of the window,
grabbed my shirt at the shoulder and tried to yank me to the ground.
It didn't work (though I ended up in a confrontation with all of them
after giving them the fingers), but it's the sort of ridiculous random
danger which makes cycling exciting and makes me put my helmet on.
This was at city speeds, so the helmet might have come in handy. I've
had similar things happen with drivers in the country, but at much
higher speeds.

[eflayer]

to me, he spent 10 minutes saying nearly nothing...but seemed rather
proud of himself the entire time. other than that, he's a cool looking
guy, but i would not have him meet my sister.

On Mar 15, 5:39 pm, rperks <perks....@gmail.com> wrote:
> The points of view were the fact that cycling statistcly appears safer
> then ever as a mode of local travel, and that the culture of fear sold
> by the helmet salesmen is a detrement to the spread of cycling to more
> people.  Likewise if the level of marketing helmets to activites
> statisticly more dangerous than cycling: driving or walking, that we
> think it would be silly?
>
> Not sure what rubs you wrong about his delivery.  Likewise his blog,http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/, an dthe cycling chic seems to
> rub people wrong.  This again confuses me as to why showing regular
> people dressed smartly using bikes to get around town is a bad
> thing.
>
> To me it sounds like he is pushing knowledge to trump marketing and
> fear?
>
> Different strokes for different folks I guess.
>
> Rob

>
> On Mar 15, 5:03 pm, eflayer <eddie.fla...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > not sure what the points of view are, but this guy, to me, is an hot
> > air baloon....full of hot air. Not even considering his point of view
> > about helmets, just how arrrogant he sounds/is:
>

> >http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael-colville-andersen- Hide quoted text -

[NickBull]

If you could carry a magic, gold thread that weighs a microgram and
costs a penny for a hundred of them and would cut the rate of serious
or fatal injuries by 99%, would you do it? What if it only cut the
injury rate by 1%? Keep in mind -- it's only a penny per hundred, and
only a microgram. You could buy a penny's worth and you and 99
friends could tie one to your saddle rails. Of course you'd carry the
magic thread, even if it only helped a bit. Now, if it cost a hundred
billion dollars and weighed a ton, you wouldn't carry it even if it
completely eliminated injuries, because you couldn't afford it and you
couldn't ride your bike with it. Helmets are somewhere in between.
They cost a bit and they weigh a bit. They also cut the rate of
serious or fatal injuries a bit (conditional on your not doing stupid
things like riding dangerously as if the helmet is a magic talisman
that will prevent all accidents). Are they worth it? Depends on the
probability of failure times the cost of the failure. And how much
that is reduced by wearing a helmet. Even very low-probability events
are worth spending something to avoid, if they are very costly when
they occur. E.g., maybe it would have been worth spending a little
more to site nuclear plants further away from the likely path of
tsunamis, even if doing so increases their costs.

Nick

[Michael_S]

he is rather obnoxious. I'd feel pretty weird without that plastic
bowl on my head. I guess if it saves me from serious head injury just
once it was worth wearing it all those years.

~Mike

On Mar 15, 5:30 pm, Montclair BobbyB <montclairbob...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Wow... that's 10 minutes I'll never get back...

[Ray Shine]

Same thing just happened to me, Bruce. helmet split 3 " up the left side. I was dazed, but able to barely function.  Too bad I didn't have a helmet for my right  collar bone, which snapped completely in two.  Even worse, the collision with that guard rail was ENTIRELY my fault.

---

From: Bruce <fully...@yahoo.com>
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Grant refers to this helmet guy for some reason

[rob markwardt]

You never know when you'll need one.....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77502424@N00/4925175273/



PS. If you tell me walking is more dangerous than cycling I kind of
tune out everything else you say....what did he say?

[Robert F. Harrison]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, James Valiensi <vali...@mac.com> wrote:

One thing wearing a helmet will protect you from, is having to listen to folks to tell you should have a helmet on.

There is that, and my other favorite reason for wearing a helmet. I commute a lot and end up riding at night on city streets quite often. The helmet is one more place to stick Reflexite tape.

I may have needed a helmet once when, embarrassingly I fell off my bike at a complete stop...yep. When I went down my helmet hit the pavement. Here's the thing. I can't say for sure my head would have hit the pavement if it had another inch or two for my reflexes to kick in. 

Aloha

--
Robert Harrison
rfhar...@gmail.com
statrix.com

[Tim McNamara]

On Mar 16, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Anne Paulson wrote:

>> Bottom line, I don't care what statistics show, either in favor or
>> against, nor will I EVER. I will ignore them over my own gut intuition

That stance is always at some risk of becoming "I know what I know, don't confuse me with the facts." Which sort of thing has had all sorts of consequences in American political and economic life.

> I am the complete opposite-- I believe statistics-crazed sports nerd
> is the term of art here. My gut would like to be informed by accurate
> statistics on the increased risk posed by my cycling without a helmet,
> before it supplies me with intuition on whether to wear one. My gut
> already knew that some cyclists have had head injuries, and other
> cyclists have not. My gut is therefore markedly unimpressed by
> anecdata from neurologists who only see people with head injuries and
> do not treat the many perfectlly healthy cyclists who return from
> rides without having injured their heads, and equally unpersuaded by
> cyclists who announce that they ride without a helmet and haven't had
> a head injury.

The available statistics have some trends which have probably already been covered and, if not, such discussion is readily available in less pleasant and more contentious forums (fora?). Check Google Groups for rec.bicycles.tech and read any one of the dozens of helmet threads, which are incredibly tedious and repetitive FWIW. One of them will be enough. The interested reader can also check www.cyclehelmets.org for a broad perspective on the helmet issue. I don't care to repeat that stuff, I've been in enough discussions about helmets that I have had a bellyful. No longer interested in the debate.

The fundamental problem is that bike crashes are chaotic events. One can tumble down the road or trail and never bump your head. Or you can hit it 11 times. You can hit your head and get nothing but a bump or a cut; you can hit your head and squash part of your brain. Helmets can only protect against certain kinds of brain injuries, if they provide any protection at all. You can die from a traumatic brain injury without your head ever touching anything (e.g., shaken brain syndrome) and a helmet can't help at all with that. The extra weight may even make matters worse. There's just no way to know in any given crash whether the helmet helped significantly or not. It might have; it might not have. In the past few years around here, almost every cyclist killed while riding was wearing a helmet as reported in the news; most died from non-head injury causes and most from being struck by a motor vehicle. One of the oddest was two helmeted cyclists who collided headfirst in a bike path tunnel, killing one of them on the spot.

So, you pay your money and you take your chance. Go for a ride. With or without a helmet it is overwhelmingly likely to be a nice thing to do and the likelihood of dying while doing it is extremely small. Probably on the order of one death for every 1,000,000 rides. If you get to 999,999 maybe be extra careful on that next ride.

[charlie]

On helmet effectiveness:
If you weigh over 150 pounds, fall from a height greater than a meter,
go faster than about 14 mph or hit any surface that is not flat, your
helmet may not work for you. For minor bumps they are better than
nothing but pretty useless against heavy impacts.
On cycling increasing the chances of hitting your head:
I think we would need some data to analyze but my personal experience
tells me it is about the same as walking or running.

Go Jan ! I enjoy reading thoughtful articles related to cycling.

On Mar 16, 12:55 pm, Travis <travisbreitenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've searched extensively as well and cannot find anything
> scientifically convincing. However, here are a couple of very simple
> questions which may be helpful:
>
> 1) Do helmets reduce the extent of head or neck injuries incurred by
> impact to the head?
> 2) Does cycling increase the likelihood of impact to the head, whether
> or not a helmet is in use?
>
> If you have a suspicion that the answer to each of these questions is
> "Yes," you should probably wear a helmet.
>
> Travis Breitenbach

[RonaTD]

On Mar 16, 11:10 am, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> At Bicycle Quarterly, we are considering looking at the statistics
> and figuring out whether helmets make riding safer, whether risk
> compensation really is a factor, etc

As somebody who makes his living being dangerous with statistics, let
me gently wade in here and suggest that statistics are useless for the
purpose of helping an individual person make a decision whether to
wear a helmet. Whatever statistics you come up with will be averages
across all sorts of controlled and uncontrolled factors. Lots of
conditional probabilities get the conditions rubbed away and become
seemingly unconditional.

The reality for an individual cyclist, at an individual point in time
and space, is that things are extremely conditional. And, when you
start piling on all those specific conditions, your statistics are
meaningless.

In the language of insurers, we're dealing with problems of incidence
and severity. For most people who wear helmets when they ride, it's a
pretty simple calculus. The cost of wearing a helmet is extremely
small, so incidence isn't much of a factor. The potential severity of
injury from a fall, and the perceived reduction in likely severity if
there's a fall, makes the perceived benefit of wearing a helmet much
greater than the cost. The problem with a brainless "expected loss =
incidence * severity" analysis is that it only works for an insurance
company. For an individual, the equation becomes much closer to
binary. The expected severity is high if there's a fall (especially
when high velocity and/or high mass moving objects are involved), and
it's a conditional calculation: no fall, no severity; fall, high
severity. Individuals don't get to benefit from the law of large
numbers to even out the severity distribution, especially because it
only takes one incident to put the individual in the right-censored
part of the distribution.

So, if you want to add something meaningful, I suggest focusing on
severity. Collect all the data you can about cycling accidents, with
and without helmet use, and measure the distribution of injury type
and severity, controlling for whatever you think is relevant. Forget
about trying to prove anything about incidence, that's a fool's
errand.

Ted Durant

[Steve Palincsar]

Bravo! And when you're thinking about "severity" let's not limit the
field to brain injuries alone. I'll bet if she saw the scrapes on the
side of my helmet that time I went down sideways going around the
traffic circle at Mount Vernon, when my wheel got caught between the two
concrete lanes, and imagined them on the side of her face, Anne would
have rated that as a "pretty damn severe" injury.

[cyclotourist]

Egads people, start your own google group already.  You can call it "Bicycle Helmet Discussion:  Is syrofoam for you?" 

It's quite easy and fun.  Really, give it a try.

[Anne Paulson]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:18 PM, RonaTD <tedd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Individuals don't get to benefit from the law of large
> numbers to even out the severity distribution, especially because it
> only takes one incident to put the individual in the right-censored
> part of the distribution.

This sounds like a misanalysis to me. Are we supposed to throw up our
hands and say, we can't estimate the probability of an adverse event,
so we'd better take precautions in case it happens if the precautions
aren't particularly onerous? So I should wear my bike helmet when I
cross the street? Should I bring mountain-lion repellent when I go for
a bike ride? (I actually saw a mountain lion cub when I was riding a
couple of weeks ago. Very cool. But I digress.) We don't take
precautions against extremely low probability events, even if the
precautions would be not very onerous.

A helmet isn't hugely onerous (and as I said, I always wear one) but
it's not totally without drawbacks. It messes up my hair, it costs
money, it's not totally perfect. If I knew about the probability of
accidents *where a helmet would protect me from injury* and that
probability was really really small, I'd stop wearing one.

[Rambouilleting Utahn]

On Mar 16, 5:11 pm, Kris <kkjellqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone else is chiming in.....so.....
>

> Anyone been on the ski slopes recently?  Talk about creating a market
> out of nothing!  I don't know ANYONE who has ever taken a serious
> knock while skiing, but suddenly 30%+ of the market is wearing a
> shell.
>
> K

Sorry Kris but you must not know many people who ski or ride, amongst
my peers probably 90% wear helmets.

I'll occasionally go for a ride without a helmet but after stitches in
my scalp twice and numerous other head bumps I'll never ski without
one.

[lukemcg]

To each their own. I ride with a helmet. I ski with a helmet. Will
either save me from a catastrophic collision? Unlikely. Could they
mean the difference between a slight concussion and a brain bleed
leading to death.

Does wearing a helmet cause me to think that I am somehow immortal or
impervious to harm. Hardly. I see enough drivers on the road texting
and cell phoning to know that I am one inattentive driver away from
destiny.

It does me no harm to wear the helmet, but I don't want to argue about
the topic with others. Personally, I figure that Darwinian principles
will win out and we will see fewer non-helmeted bicyclists and skiers
as the generations move on.

My dad always said that we were free to choose our own vices. To each
their own.

Luke McGlynn

[Ariel Bautista]

Isn't the argument essentially circular though? Those against helmet-
wearing argue so in an ultimate attempt to expand ridership and
therefore strengthen the demand on cities to provide adequate
infrastructure. Those who argue for helmet-wearing are simply
addressing the reality that most roads are unfit for cycling.

I drive buses part-time for my university and I gained some
perspective on S. California drivers and cyclists. Simply put, it's
truly wild out there on the streets. I never really noticed it driving
around town in my tiny Honda, but once I started servicing routes I
realized that there are just a lot of poor drivers on the road and
worst yet, there are a considerable amount of poor cyclists as well
(who most likely don't follow groups such as these). Drivers down here
must think they're racing in NASCAR because they speed, cut one
another off, and bank corners at the expense of staying in their lane.
Some cyclists on the other hand must believe that their still riding
their little red tricycle around their backyard because they fail to
recognize any rules of the road - i.e. riding on the wrong side,
rounding their left hand turn around the crosswalks, etc.

It just isn't safe out there and convincing a whole bunch of people
otherwise without properly instructing them as to the rules of the
road seems like a tragedy waiting to unfold. We all want bicycle
friendly infrastructure, but we NEED road literate drivers and
cyclists....

[michael]

On Mar 15, 8:03 pm, eflayer <eddie.fla...@att.net> wrote:
> not sure what the points of view are, but this guy, to me, is an hot
> air baloon....full of hot air. Not even considering his point of view
> about helmets, just how arrrogant he sounds/is:
>
> http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael-colville-andersen

Most TED talks are pretty interesting. Intended to get people
thinking. As for helmets and cycling, I think there are systemic
reasons beyond helmets at play here which keep people from using a
bike for daily commuting... Consider how profitable McDonalds is
despite the health implications - convenience and habit are likely
factors.

On helmets: I live in Dallas where it is illegal to bicycle without
one, but legal for motorcyclists to go without. Doesn't make much
sense to me. So, I wear a helmet when cycling in Dallas. Beyond that,
I consider the ride and sometimes go without.

Michael McCarthy

[Scott Postlewait]

Thanks for the link Patrick!  I rarely read BSNYC, but clicked on your link and was scrolling down at lunch, and in his recap of the Seattle Bicycle Expo there's a picture of my Rawland cSogn - wood fenders, black saddlebag, shellacked handlebar tape....  

Scott "what are the chances of that?" Postlewait

Seattle, WA

On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:52 AM, PATRICK MOORE wrote:

Shucks, 'twas nuthin, really.

More eloquent by far than I, BSNYC indulges in some amusing punditry and soul moving commentary on recent "bicycle safety rules" here: http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, MontclairBobbyB <montcla...@gmail.com> wrote:

Patrick;

 

I'm sure I've already told you this, but I'll be first in line at your book signing... you are indeed fun to read.  (In fact if you have a reason to travel East, you should consider joining us for Riv Rally East May 6-8... With Robert Zeidler, Steve Palincsar and Kelly Sleeper (among others) planning to attend, I expect the dialogue (in addition to the scenery) to be rather colorful...

Peace,
BB

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:54 PM, PATRICK MOORE <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

A mons parturating (or perhaps "cacare" is better -- "Culus tibi purior salillo est,
nec toto decies cacas in anno"; yes, I had to look that up) Charlie Sheen would be even more ridiculous. Who needs satire? God preserve us from becoming rich, famous, sexy and important or more of us would end up like him.

Anyway, this is the old proverb about a mountain straining and groaning and giving birth to a mouse: tempest in a teapot.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Montclair BobbyB <montcla...@gmail.com> wrote:

...and Patrick... Please help me to appreciate "the impending,

ineluctible, overawing and highly terrible roar of a mons parturating

a mus"... :)

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact

Patrick Moore, ACRW at patric...@resumespecialties.com

--
"LIFE... is better, when you ride bikes"...

Bob Birmingham
Cell: (908) 303-6887

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact

Patrick Moore, ACRW at patric...@resumespecialties.com

[PATRICK MOORE]

Glad to spread light and happiness. Seriously, congratulations. 

[Mike S]

"Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you
want." - Devo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVGINIsLnqU

On Mar 17, 12:07 pm, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Glad to spread light and happiness. Seriously, congratulations.
>

> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Scott Postlewait <chsc...@drizzle.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thanks for the link Patrick!  I rarely read BSNYC, but clicked on your link
> > and was scrolling down at lunch, and in his recap of the Seattle Bicycle
> > Expo there's a picture of my Rawland cSogn - wood fenders, black saddlebag,
> > shellacked handlebar tape....
>
> > Scott "what are the chances of that?" Postlewait
> > Seattle, WA
>
> > On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:52 AM, PATRICK MOORE wrote:
>
> > Shucks, 'twas nuthin, really.
>
> > More eloquent by far than I, BSNYC indulges in some amusing punditry and
> > soul moving commentary on recent "bicycle safety rules" here:
> >http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/
>
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, MontclairBobbyB <
> > montclairbob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Patrick;
>
> >> I'm sure I've already told you this, but I'll be first in line at your
> >> book signing... you are indeed fun to read.  (In fact if you have a reason
> >> to travel East, you should consider joining us for Riv Rally East May 6-8...
> >> With Robert Zeidler, Steve Palincsar and Kelly Sleeper (among
> >> others) planning to attend, I expect the dialogue (in addition to the
> >> scenery) to be rather colorful...
>
> >> Peace,
> >> BB
>

> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:54 PM, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> A mons parturating (or perhaps "cacare" is better -- "Culus tibi purior
> >>> salillo est,
> >>> nec toto decies cacas in anno"; yes, I had to look that up) Charlie
> >>> Sheen would be even more ridiculous. Who needs satire? God preserve us from
> >>> becoming rich, famous, sexy and important or more of us would end up like
> >>> him.
>
> >>> Anyway, this is the old proverb about a mountain straining and groaning
> >>> and giving birth to a mouse: tempest in a teapot.
>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Montclair BobbyB <
> >>> montclairbob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> ...and Patrick... Please help me to appreciate "the impending,
>
> >>>> ineluctible, overawing and highly terrible roar of a mons parturating
> >>>> a mus"... :)
>
> >>> --
> >>> Patrick Moore
> >>> Albuquerque, NM
> >>> For professional resumes, contact

> >>> Patrick Moore, ACRW at patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com

>
> >> --
> >> "LIFE... is better, when you ride bikes"...
>
> >> Bob Birmingham

> >> Cell: <%28908%29%20303-6887>(908) 303-6887

>
> > --
> > Patrick Moore
> > Albuquerque, NM
> > For professional resumes, contact

> > Patrick Moore, ACRW at patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com

>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
> --
> Patrick Moore
> Albuquerque, NM
> For professional resumes, contact

> Patrick Moore, ACRW at patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com

[GeorgeS]

The law reports have many examples of a kind of case, usually
catoragized under "nuisance", involving low risk, but high damage
situations: people who keep bears or tigers as pets in urban settings,
the guy who manufactures liquid rocket fuel in his garage, the list is
endless. Someone claiming they are endangered by the pet or hobby
files suit. The defense usually is something like "I've had this bear
for 15 years and he's never got out or harmed anyone." The courts
regularly rule for plaintiffs reasoning that while the risk of harm
(given the defendant's track record) is small, if things do go south -
the bear gets out, the rocket fuel explodes, etc.- the damage can be
very severe and monetary damages would be inadequate. One does not
have the right generally to expose one's neighbors to great, though
unlikely to happen, risk, if the activity is unusual for the
neighborhood. I feel this way about helmets. I've been riding bikes
for a long time and I have had numerous falls and a few encounters
with cars. I've had several broken bones and other injuries. In all
that time, I've only hit my head once. But it was a pretty hard blow
right on my temple. I was wearing a helmet. Would I have survived
without the helmet? Would I have suffered some disabling injury? I
don't know but certainly there was that possiblilty. People die or
suffer severe brain injuries all the time in ordinary, non
catastrophic, falls. Brain injuries are different from broken bones
in one's arms or legs. Brain injuries can and frequently do result in
death or permanent disability. Wearing a helmet makes good sense to
me even if the probability of my needing it is quite small.
GeorgeS

On Mar 16, 11:10 am, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >  to get people on bicycles, you don't want to force them to wear a helmet
> >  and imply that they are doing something more dangerous than driving.
>

> The same arguments were made when Preston Tucker wanted to include
> seatbelts in his cars. His board thought it implied that Tucker cars
> were unsafe. (Instead, it was Volvo who introduced seatbelts. I guess
> they weren't afraid that their cars might be considered unsafe.)
>
> Today, most of us use seatbelts, because we are aware of the risks of
> driving. Seatbelts don't keep people from driving. It seems to make
> little sense to pretend that riding bikes is risk-free. Do we really
> want to foster a teenage-like feeling of invincibility in cyclists?
> (Like my neighbor 20 years ago, who took up cycling in middle age.
> She loved it, riding against the flow of traffic, helmet-free on an
> old bike with no real brakes.)
>
> The bigger issue that nobody addresses is simple: A seatbelt or a
> helmet is your last line of defense. Accident avoidance through
> competent driving/riding is a much more important component of your
> safety. With cars, our focus on technology over driver education has
> had the U.S. slip from the safest country for drivers to one of the
> least safe. (However, that statistic in the NY Times was per driver,
> not per miles, and Americans drive more... so one might want to
> correct for that.)

>
> At Bicycle Quarterly, we are considering looking at the statistics
> and figuring out whether helmets make riding safer, whether risk

> compensation really is a factor, etc. I believe there is a need for
> real data, rather than opinion, on the subject. It's not that hard to
> figure this out, especially when you compare different countries and
> populations. But of course, like most quasi-religious topics, it
> would be a hotly debated issue. What do you guys think?
>
> Jan Heine
> Editor
> Bicycle Quarterlyhttp://www.bikequarterly.com
>
> Follow our blog athttp://janheine.wordpress.com/

[Jim M.]

Did anyone notice Jim's post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch/browse_thread/thread/0c06f267e731afc7?hl=en
?

This thread should fade away. Let it go; you're not going to convince
each other.

Anyone get a new bike lately? How about lovely spring rides?

All the rain in Walnut Creek this year convinced me to put fenders on
for the first time. They're on my '87 MB-1, which has mustache bars
(as opposed to the original dirt drops), and 1.5" tires. I was
prepared to be disappointed by the performance of the 559's on the
road, but I'm acutally quite pleased at how quick the bike feels and
how well it handles. When I put a new headset on, there just wasn't
enough room for a cable hanger, which puzzled me. I found the old
catalog from Sheldon's site, and it turns out the original bike had a
hole in the stem that acted as the cable stop. I carefully drilled a
small hole in the stem and, voila, a cable stop.


jim m
wc ca