Cannondale: ³It's a better quality, nicer weld, with more patents.²
Luke
Story in a Canadian rag, The Globe and Mail, detailing the difficulties
of integrated an uptown brand into a low rent empire.
bigji...@gmail.com
who wish they did!
SMS
I think that Specialized has no need to be worried, nor does Trek. When
was the last time you saw a bicycle store selling Cannondale?
Ryan Cousineau
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
Are you serious? Because they have a pretty extensive dealer network.
They may not be Trek, but then, who is?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
catzz66
> In article <EB2Xj.4557$nW2...@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Luke wrote:
>>
>>>Story in a Canadian rag, The Globe and Mail, detailing the difficulties
>>>of integrated an uptown brand into a low rent empire.
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/423pgm
>>
>>I think that Specialized has no need to be worried, nor does Trek. When
>>was the last time you saw a bicycle store selling Cannondale?
>
>
> Are you serious? Because they have a pretty extensive dealer network.
>
> They may not be Trek, but then, who is?
>
It probably depends on where you live. I don't remember the last time I
saw a Cannondale bike.
SMS
> In article <EB2Xj.4557$nW2...@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Luke wrote:
>>> Story in a Canadian rag, The Globe and Mail, detailing the difficulties
>>> of integrated an uptown brand into a low rent empire.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/423pgm
>> I think that Specialized has no need to be worried, nor does Trek. When
>> was the last time you saw a bicycle store selling Cannondale?
>
> Are you serious? Because they have a pretty extensive dealer network.
Perhaps, but all the top tier stores seem to have dropped them.
I tried using their "Dealer Locator" on their web site, and I see that
REI carries them, as well as some second tier shops.
I was at a bicycle shop yesterday, talking to them about some marketing
of one of their niche product lines, and the owner was talking to me
about the lines of bicycles he carries. He carries Trek, Raleigh,
Electra, and Diamondback. Trek is no more expensive (wholesale) that the
other top brands like Cannondale or Specialized, and sells much better.
Trek's periodic dealer promotions aren't as good as the other lines,
they'll sometimes offer 25-30% off the regular wholesale price to clear
out excess inventory, which is less than the other brands offer, and
it's more limited (certain sizes and colors of certain models). In any
case, it's Trek sales, and accessory sales that are keeping the shop going.
Trek is not selling other lines of products into department stores, or
even chains like REI. The dealers still remember Specialized's ill-fated
foray into chain stores with the "Full Force" brand.
Diablo Scott
>
> Trek is not selling other lines of products into department stores, or
> even chains like REI. The dealers still remember Specialized's ill-fated
> foray into chain stores with the "Full Force" brand.
An LBS employee told me that Bell had bought Giro (I didn't
know that) and now that Giro helmets are in places like
Copeland's (chain sporting goods) the LBS wouldn't be
carrying Giro any more. It was just a pricing issue though
I think... he said that Copeland's just has a lower overhead
and markup so he had to carry something that the cheaper
retailers couldn't offer. Nothing to do with diluting the
brand. So now he carries Specialized helmets along with Trek.
Paul M. Hobson
> Perhaps, but all the top tier stores seem to have dropped them.
What top tier stores are you talking about?
> I tried using their "Dealer Locator" on their web site, and I see that
> REI carries them, as well as some second tier shops.
How do you know which LBSes qualify as top and second tier stores? The
way you phrased all this, you really seem to be talking out of your ass.
Seven out of the eight shops that deal with Cannondale in the Atlanta
are quality LBSes, from what I gather.
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
.:change the f to ph to reply:.
Mike Jacoubowsky
The issue isn't lower overhead for the big guys vs the LBS. The issue is
that, if Bellsports or whomever wants to hit their numbers at the end of the
month, they give a call to the big mail order houses offering them
incentives to bring in a ton of product. That's standard industry practice
with a lot of the players.
It's not a level playing field; the big guys have some huge advantages over
the LBS. That's one of the reasons shops support Trek so well. Trek doesn't
play games like that; if they overproduce something, it's offered to all of
their dealers at the reduced price. Everybody has the same rules. To be
competitive without having lots of slash & burn sales, they have to make
sure they've got a good product at a reasonable price, and they generally do
pretty well in that regard.
Unfortunately, Trek can make exceptional bikes, but they don't quite have
the high-end helmet thing down. Giro is king there, with the best-in-class
style & graphics around. It's not about quality per se; the $39.99 Trek
Vapor is the "killer app" of helmets. But Giro somehow manages to make hard
foam with a thin plastic shell actually look like something someone would
pay $200+ for.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Frank Krygowski
wrote:
> [about Trek & Cannondale]
>
> It's not a level playing field; the big guys have some huge advantages over
> the LBS. That's one of the reasons shops support Trek so well. Trek doesn't
> play games like that; if they overproduce something, it's offered to all of
> their dealers at the reduced price. Everybody has the same rules. To be
> competitive without having lots of slash & burn sales, they have to make
> sure they've got a good product at a reasonable price, and they generally do
> pretty well in that regard.
I'd think Trek's higher popularity also has something to do with Lance
winning seven Tours on them. If he'd ridden Cannondale, he'd have
been just as fast, I'm sure, and Cannondale's sales would be much
higher.
That's why Nike pays millions and millions to get Tiger Woods, Michael
Jordan, LeBron James, etc. under their wing. Lots of consumers aren't
very bright; they're easily influenced by those tactics.
>
> Unfortunately, Trek can make exceptional bikes, but they don't quite have
> the high-end helmet thing down. Giro is king there, with the best-in-class
> style & graphics around. It's not about quality per se; the $39.99 Trek
> Vapor is the "killer app" of helmets. But Giro somehow manages to make hard
> foam with a thin plastic shell actually look like something someone would
> pay $200+ for.
Hmm. As I said, lots of consumers aren't very bright; they're easily
influenced by those tactics.
- Frank Krygowski
Nate Nagel
(looks around)
about 5 seconds ago...
might not be the *greatest* bike on earth, but for a Craigslist buy,
it's pretty spiffy. Would have had to pay at least 2-3x as much for
anything comparable from a LBS...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Nate Nagel
> Unfortunately, Trek can make exceptional bikes, but they don't quite have
> the high-end helmet thing down. Giro is king there, with the best-in-class
> style & graphics around. It's not about quality per se; the $39.99 Trek
> Vapor is the "killer app" of helmets. But Giro somehow manages to make hard
> foam with a thin plastic shell actually look like something someone would
> pay $200+ for.
Taking this on a tangent, I see that the Vapor is only available on one
universal size. (I'm actually thinking I ought to get a new helmet, and
if I could get a good one for 40 bucks that'd be even better.) I guess
I just ASSumed that a helmet should be fitted to one's dome. It appears
Trek doesn't agree. Who's right?
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:g0lg0...@news2.newsguy.com...
Nate: We resisted the move to a single-size helmet with everything we had,
but in the end, it doesn't seem to have been such a bad thing. It's not
actually just a one-size offering, since they also have smaller shells for
both youth and women. They did drop a bit off the large end of folk that it
might fit though. Best bet is to simply try one on and see. Do keep in mind
that, while fitting a helmet isn't difficult, it still needs to be done. Not
much to it; adjust the straps so they come together just under the ears, and
turn the knob at the back to loosen or tighten. It will either fit
comfortably or not.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Mike Jacoubowsky
"Paul M. Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:g0l89e$bcs$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
| SMS wrote:
| > Perhaps, but all the top tier stores seem to have dropped them.
|
| What top tier stores are you talking about?
|
| > I tried using their "Dealer Locator" on their web site, and I see that
| > REI carries them, as well as some second tier shops.
|
| How do you know which LBSes qualify as top and second tier stores? The
| way you phrased all this, you really seem to be talking out of your ass.
| Seven out of the eight shops that deal with Cannondale in the Atlanta
| are quality LBSes, from what I gather.
The quality of shops for a given brand in a given area is going to be hugely
dependent upon the quality and long-term thinking of the local rep. Bicycle
companies with a high churn rate for reps are going to choose quick fixes to
their distribution issues (primarily selling more bikes!) rather than make
short-term sacrifices that will pay dividends down the road. This is one
area that Trek probably has it hands-down over the rest of the brands,
because there's an inherent stability within the organization that breeds
long-term loyalties. Reps tend to stay far longer than at most companies,
and management? Pretty much the same group of people for the past 20 years.
Trek is also highly unusual among the major players because they don't
require that dealers put in huge pre-season orders... for bike or parts. We
can order what we want, when we want it. The company actually discourages
dealers carrying too much inventory, because inventory sitting in boxes is
costing the dealer money. Money needs to "work" which means it needs to
"turn" (a "turn" represents how many times a given unit on the floor will
sell in a given year, so if always have two of something in stock and you
sell twelve in a year, you're getting six "turns" on the product).
Trek believes that a more-profitable dealer is going to invest more in their
business and their community (community investment=bicycle advocacy). Both
of those grow sales for bikes in general and Trek in particular.
Not every dealer is up for it though; what Trek expects, in return for
dealers not having to carry huge inventories at times of the year it doesn't
sell, is a large percentage of the dealer's business. Many of us "drink the
kool-aid" and buy into it, and many resist. Ultimately, the major brands
(the Big 3, which would be Specialized, Giant & Trek) all have the same
ideal store in mind- a store that carries only their brand (of the Big 3)
and purchases 70%+ of their bike inventory from them.
Can you be a "top tier" store without carrying one of the Big 3? Yes. Is it
easy? No. Most other brands lack year-to-year consistency, making it
difficult to assume that you won't have concerns about supplies and even
product quality from one year to the next. And if a store is into
cherry-picking from a whole lot of lines, there's no way they're going to
get anywhere near the quality of warranty effort & resolution as a store
that has more loyalty to a particular company.
This has strayed quite a ways from the original question.
ZBicyclist
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Mongoose here, which is another
Pacific/Dorel brand. They've tried to sell at both ends of the
market with the same brand, which is confusing -- and I wouldn't
guess works well at the high end of the spectrum.
Starting a brand high and then moving mass market is a classic
marketing strategy which I've seen in hair products [the high end
stuff starts out in salons with the secret-ingredient-of-the-year
then moves into supermarkets and drug stores -- older examples
include Jhirmack and Jerri Redding products], womens foundation
garments [new brands start out in Nordstroms, etc. and eventually
move to discount stores], luggage [Samsonite used to be a high end
only brand, long ago], etc. And, of course, there's consumer
electronics.
This can work out well for all concerned -- even the salons,
specialty stores and other high end places -- if there's a new
product pipeline once the original brand moves downmarket. So, when
herbal shampoo moved out of salons into grocery, there was aloe to
replace it. But if there's not an adequate pipeline, the high end
shops get hosed.
In essence, this is what happened to all those Schwinn shops,
although that story is much more complicated to summarize so simply.
Now Schwinn is just the "better" brand at Wal-mart. [You can still
get a top quality bike made by a Schwinn, but it will have a
"Waterford" decal.]
Shimano is really on the ball here. Shimano stands for a "quality"
drivetrain at all levels. At the high end it stands for "more
quality". If they make cheap junk, they at least don't put their
own name on it. This multiple positioning is probably easier for a
component maker [like Shimano or Intel].
--
Mike Kruger
"You have to be careful if you are reckless." - Richard M. Daley
SMS
> Taking this on a tangent, I see that the Vapor is only available on one
> universal size. (I'm actually thinking I ought to get a new helmet, and
> if I could get a good one for 40 bucks that'd be even better.) I guess
> I just ASSumed that a helmet should be fitted to one's dome. It appears
> Trek doesn't agree. Who's right?
Not sure if it's still the case, but last time I bought a helmet
Specialized was one of the only ones available that still had Snell
certification. It was around $30 on sale for the Chamonix model. I
checked their web site, and the MSRP is now $50, and it's still Snell
approved. Their more expensive models are not Snell approved, presumably
because the design is such that they can't pass.
One thing you can be sure of that if a helmet is Snell approved the
manufacturer will use that in the marketing, so the absence of any
markings on the helmet, or logos on the web site, that show that it's
Snell approved is a pretty good indicator that it's not.
Nate Nagel
Interesting post.
I found this:
http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90A_B-95A_B-90C_B-95C.html
which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
certified. Interesting reading.
I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
well work if required.
SMS
> I found this:
>
> http://www.smf.org/
>
> http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90A_B-95A_B-90C_B-95C.html
>
> which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
> certified. Interesting reading.
>
> I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
> standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
> well work if required.
CPSC is self-certification.
I'm sure there's never been a study comparing accident death and injury
rates of Snell approved helmets versus CPSC approved helmets. There's
probably a very narrow window where it would make a difference.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I found this:
>
> http://www.smf.org/
>
> http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90A_B-95A_B-90C_B-95C.html
>
> which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
> certified. Interesting reading.
>
> I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
> standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
> well work if required.
>
Snell uses a drop height that's 10% higher than CPSC. That difference
is almost certainly insignificant. Both tests are laughably weak,
with Snell's only marginally less weak.
Snell periodically buys helmets and tests them. CPSC relies on
companies fear of selling an illegal product.
Snell makes money off every Snell-certified helmet. CPSC does not.
It's absolute fantasy to think that a Snell hat would "work" when a
CPSC on would not. It's like putting a sweater over your bulletproof
vest - because you're afraid someone might shoot you with a howitzer.
Helmets are bump protectors, period. When they "work" at all, it's
just to prevent a bruise. And the long and pleasant history of
bicycling, with billions upon billions of cyclists, proves that even
bump protection is not needed.
Instead of reading Snell's advertising, consider reading a site that
exists for the science, not to make money. Visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
Try not to be such a gullible, fearful fashion slave.
- Frank Krygowski
Nate Nagel
HA!
you obviously have not looked into my closet lately.
Seriously, I'm just trying to make an educated purchasing decision. It
seems like helmets are de rigeur in my area; I'm about the only person I
see on any given ride not wearing one. Plus, there's TONS of traffic in
my area, so the thought of having a little extra safety equipment,
within reason, isn't ludicrous.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to replace the Porsche with an SUV
just to get airbags and some "road hugging weight," but good lights and
a helmet are not a bad idea.
Speaking of lights, I got my package from DealExtreme yesterday with the
lenses someone here recommended, I'll check 'em out tonight to see if
they make an acceptable (to me) headlight, if it's not raining. (I just
got back from a quick spin to the LBS to get a new lock; it was a
beautiful ride out, and rather moist coming back.) I just wish I wasn't
blind without my glasses; makes riding in the rain a little less
pleasant than it needs to be.
Nate Nagel
Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
you can ride home from.
SMS
> Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
> old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
> with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
> data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
> cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
> you can ride home from.
That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
vehicle.
See the compendium of studies at
"http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html"
Mike Jacoubowsky
| > old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
| > with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
| > data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
| > cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
| > you can ride home from.
|
| That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
| claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
| vehicle.
Helmet makers will *never* make that claim, even if they thought it to be
true. For that matter, helmet makers don't really make safety-related claims
at all, if you read their literature. They're scared to death of lawsuits.
The easiest way to attract lawsuits is to try and make something that will
make someone safer. You have to market it based on style and inference, but
cannot make any claim past passing xzy standard, because to do so will most
certainly put you in court when someone's killed or injured, regardless of
whether the impact was clearly beyond the design of the helmet.
Frank Krygowski
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
> > old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
> > with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
> > data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
> > cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
> > you can ride home from.
>
> That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
> claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
> vehicle.
No, of course not. They let other people make those claims for them.
>
> See the compendium of studies at
> "http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffe..."
IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027
- Frank Krygowski
Mike Jacoubowsky
| generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
| that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
|
| I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
| tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027
|
| - Frank Krygowski
Don't put too much faith in the cyclehelmets.org folk. They generate their
own agenda-driven babble, as illustrated below-
"Helmets provide some protection when there is only partial compression of
the liner and they may work better if in addition there is no split or
breakage. This is most likely to be the case in crashes that result from
low-speed falls without any third party involvement and where, without a
helmet, injury would be relatively minor. If the liner suffered no
compression, the helmet almost certainly played no role in preventing injury
and without the helmet there would have been no injury of consequence
anyway."
Near as I can tell, they offer no scientific evidence on their site to
support such claims. There have certainly been enough helmeted bicycle
incidents to either support or refute such claims, *if* they wanted to
trouble themselves with doing the research. In the prior paragraph, they
explain that a helmet destroys itself in 1/1000th of a second (without a
citation) and that "the absorption of initial forces during this very short
period of time is unlikely to make a significant difference to the
likelihood of serious injury or death."
"*Unlikely* to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious
injury or death?" Do they offer studies showing the dynamics of an impact,
specifically force over time? Not that I can find. What they say *sounds*
reasonable, but that doesn't make it good science.
I am strongly against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, because I think
they severely discourage cycling, and the benefits outweigh the risks. But
that's different from being anti-helmet.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:edbaf386-032f-451b...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Frank Krygowski
> | IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
> | generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
> | that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
> |
> | I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
> | tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027
> |
>
> own agenda-driven babble, as illustrated below-
>
> "Helmets provide some protection when there is only partial compression of
> the liner and they may work better if in addition there is no split or
> breakage. This is most likely to be the case in crashes that result from
> low-speed falls without any third party involvement and where, without a
> helmet, injury would be relatively minor. If the liner suffered no
> compression, the helmet almost certainly played no role in preventing injury
> and without the helmet there would have been no injury of consequence
> anyway."
>
> Near as I can tell, they offer no scientific evidence on their site to
> support such claims. There have certainly been enough helmeted bicycle
> incidents to either support or refute such claims, *if* they wanted to
> trouble themselves with doing the research.
Well, there's quite a lot more to doing such research than merely
troubling oneself!
In general, doing research costs money - often, serious money. And
the fact driving the current helmet propaganda is that one can make
money by marketing helmets (using the broadest sense of "marketing");
but one can't make money by showing helmets are not worth buying.
Consequently, Bell Sports can very "charitably" help fund the
Harborview Institute and anyone else who is willing to "prove" that
helmets are both necessary and valuable. They can also "charitably"
help fund Safe Kids, and any other organization willing to lobby for
mandatory helmet laws.
If they were smart, bike manufacturers should be helping fund helmet
skeptic research and groups. But that's not been the case.
> In the prior paragraph, they
> explain that a helmet destroys itself in 1/1000th of a second (without a
> citation) and that "the absorption of initial forces during this very short
> period of time is unlikely to make a significant difference to the
> likelihood of serious injury or death."
>
> "*Unlikely* to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious
> injury or death?" Do they offer studies showing the dynamics of an impact,
> specifically force over time? Not that I can find. What they say *sounds*
> reasonable, but that doesn't make it good science.
I admit that some of the information on the Cyclehelmets site seems
speculative, and it would be better if such speculation was either
labeled as such, or removed.
But much of the "unlikely" is buttressed by the fact that, despite
Harborview's (nee Thompson & Rivara's) promises, there never has been
an 85% drop in serious head injuries in response to radical increases
in helmet wearing. There never has been a 69% decrease, either. In
fact, the better the data, the more obvious it is that there is no
drop in serious head injuries per remaining rider. I've given copious
citations before, but I can do it again, if needed. Start with the
July 29, 2001 New York Times article, "A Bicycling Mystery." The
"mystery" they speak of is that cycling head injuries have been risen,
not fallen, with the popularity of helmets.
IOW, one can say that the helmets are "unlikely" to make a difference,
largely because they have not made a difference.
Admittedly, some of the details are speculative. For example, it's
not clear which possible causes for failure are most important: risk
compensation (or, more accurately, over compensation)? A larger
"target" leading to more head impacts? Larger diameter target
imparting more angular acceleration? Badly fitted helmets?
Insufficient impact standards and tests? Or other factors?
But what's clear is that helmets are not delivering on their
advocates' promise. It's also clear that the need for helmets is
wildly overstated - or, more properly, manufactured entirely from
propaganda.
Whatever its faults, the Cyclehelmets website is the main source
pointing these things out.
Now, if Trek would just give a million dollars or so to the effort,
I'm sure the failure of helmets could be more perfectly explained.
But I'd prefer to use that million to spread the word that helmets
are, in fact, simply not necessary for normal cycling. In other
words, I'd use it to generate publicity to counter the fear mongering.
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
> | IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
> | generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
> | that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
> |
> | I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
> | tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027
> |
> | - Frank Krygowski
>
> Don't put too much faith in the cyclehelmets.org folk. They generate their
> own agenda-driven babble, as illustrated below-
Duh, they've never had any credibility. They put up that site to try to
convince themselves that the numerous scientific studies showing a
benefit to helmet use don't apply to them. The most dishonest thing they
do is intentionally mixing whole population data with ER statistics,
though they take the whole population data out of context as well. Well
maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do, it's hard to know
where to start! When they start up comparing the Netherlands with the
U.S. and other non-cycling-centric countries that's also very misleading.
> "Helmets provide some protection when there is only partial compression of
> the liner and they may work better if in addition there is no split or
> breakage. This is most likely to be the case in crashes that result from
> low-speed falls without any third party involvement and where, without a
> helmet, injury would be relatively minor. If the liner suffered no
> compression, the helmet almost certainly played no role in preventing injury
> and without the helmet there would have been no injury of consequence
> anyway."
>
> Near as I can tell, they offer no scientific evidence on their site to
> support such claims.
There is no evidence, so how could they offer it. The entire site is
supposition, anecdotes, and out of context claims.
> There have certainly been enough helmeted bicycle
> incidents to either support or refute such claims, *if* they wanted to
> trouble themselves with doing the research.
They have no way of doing any research, nor any intention of doing any.
They threw up a web site to try to justify their own behavior, when in
fact there is no reason to justify it. The probability of an experienced
cyclist being involved in an accident where a helmet would make a
difference is pretty low. They're willing to assume the extra risk as am
I on many occasions. The difference is that I don't run around
desperately making up stories about how smart I am by not wearing a helmet!
> I am strongly against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, because I think
> they severely discourage cycling, and the benefits outweigh the risks. But
> that's different from being anti-helmet.
I think most of us here fall into that same category. Unfortunately
there area a bunch of AHZs (anti-helmet zealots) that aren't content to
fight MHLs with facts and logic, but that go beyond the reals reasons
that MHLs are a bad idea, and end up actually encouraging MHLs. When
someone brings up driving helmets and walking helmets then it's about
the same as Godwin's law regarding bringing up Hitler and Nazis.
In fact, it's time to formally create a Usenet law for helmet
discussions, so here's the first draft:
"As a Usenet helmet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison with the Netherlands, and the probability that someone will
inquire about why pedestrians and vehicle drivers should not be wearing
helmets, and the claim that helmet usage promote obesity, all approach one."
Bill Sornson
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
>>> generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
>>> that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
>>>
>>> I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no
>>> financial tie to the helmet industry.
>>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027 - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> Don't put too much faith in the cyclehelmets.org folk. They generate
>> their own agenda-driven babble, as illustrated below-
>
> Duh, they've never had any credibility. They put up that site to try
> to convince themselves that the numerous scientific studies showing a
> benefit to helmet use don't apply to them. The most dishonest thing
> they do is intentionally mixing whole population data with ER statistics,
> though they take the whole population data out of context as well.
> Well maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do, it's hard to
> know where to start! When they start up comparing the Netherlands with the
> U.S. and other non-cycling-centric countries that's also very
> misleading.
Just substitute "Frank and the AHZs" for "they" and that paragraph is good
to go.
BS (seen and sniffed)
SMS
> "*Unlikely* to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious
> injury or death?" Do they offer studies showing the dynamics of an impact,
> specifically force over time? Not that I can find. What they say *sounds*
> reasonable, but that doesn't make it good science.
Yes, they have some writers that have taken the edge off many of the
same anti-helmet arguments that you see endlessly posted on Usenet, and
they are smart enough to not include many of the exceptionally stupid
arguments (gardening helmets, walking helmets, driving helmets, etc.)
that would drive people away, but as you stated, 'sounding reasonable'
doesn't make it good science.
There's enough weasel words on cyclehelmets.org for anyone with any
critical thinking skills at all to realize that they have no idea what
they're talking about, but their target audience isn't those people that
have a scientific background. I liken them to the "Intelligent Design"
people, who try to sound scientific, but have no use for the
uncomfortable facts of science. They have an audience of readers that
_want_ to believe what isn't so, and want reassurance of their faith.
"Sounding reasonable" is a common tactic used by individuals and
organizations that have nothing to support their positions. You could
listen to Mike Huckabee and his minions on conservative talk radio rage
about the "Fair Tax" and think it sounded reasonable if you didn't know
the facts, when in reality there was no economic science behind it. You
could listen to the "Intelligent Design" people and think that their
arguments were reasonable if you didn't know the facts. You could
believe in Reaganomics, even though every economist will tell you that
it's completely bogus, and that it led to huge deficits and merely
postponed the day of reckoning when the spending without revenue party
would be over.
Alas, there are plenty of non-critical thinkers out there that fall for
the "sounds reasonable" ploy. What's even worse (IMVAIO) is those people
that _know_ the facts, but still parrot the false statements of
organizations and web sites such as cyclehelmets.org for their own reasons.
SMS
>> Duh, they've never had any credibility. They put up that site to try
>> to convince themselves that the numerous scientific studies showing a
>> benefit to helmet use don't apply to them. The most dishonest thing
>> they do is intentionally mixing whole population data with ER statistics,
>> though they take the whole population data out of context as well.
>> Well maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do, it's hard to
>> know where to start! When they start up comparing the Netherlands with the
>> U.S. and other non-cycling-centric countries that's also very
>> misleading.
>
> Just substitute "Frank and the AHZs" for "they" and that paragraph is good
> to go.
Does Frank have anything to do with authoring that site? He quotes it
and promotes it, but I don't think he created any of the content.
Bill Sornson
I didn't say he wrote or contributed to the site. He and others USE it and
its faux arguments.
HTH
SMS
> I didn't say he wrote or contributed to the site. He and others USE it and
> its faux arguments.
Actually though, maybe I was wrong. Look at
"http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html"
It's a whose who of the people that reject all the scientific evidence
and studies regarding helmets, and who promote an agenda based on
ignorance, fraud, and subjective interpretation. Riley Geary, Avery
Burdett, Guy Chapman, etc., though apparently in a vert wise move by the
board, Frank doesn't contribute to editorial content, but is listed as a
"patron."
I'm glad that I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read their
objective: "to undertake, encourage, and spread the scientific study of
the use of bicycle helmets, in the context of risk compensation and
sustainable transport." My g-d, have you looked at their site? It's a
compendium of unscientific conclusions, misinterpretation, and lack of
scientific basis, all designed to promote their agenda. Come on people,
there are ways to oppose helmet laws without resorting to this sort of
fraud.
Frank Krygowski
have to read it. Or, more accurately, don't have to exert the self-
control to not read what they don't want to read. ;-)
Anyway: SMS wrote:
>
> Duh, they've never had any credibility. ...
> maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do, it's hard to know
> where to start! .... The entire site is
> supposition, anecdotes, and out of context claims....
> They have no way of doing any research, nor any intention of doing any.
> They threw up a web site to try to justify their own behavior...Unfortunately
> there area a bunch of AHZs (anti-helmet zealots) that aren't content to
> fight MHLs with facts and logic...it's about
> the same as Godwin's law regarding bringing up Hitler and Nazis.
SMS wrote more, of course, but when a post is started with "Duh" and
ended with "Nazis," it's obvious that the quality of thinking leaves a
lot to be desired!
Concerning his few attempts at facts:
What the Cyclehelmets authors have been able to do is analyze data
from other sources - specifically, publicly available information
collected by government agencies, and data sets collected by other
(usually helmet-promoting) researchers.
The effort is largely limited to this sort of data for the specific
reason I cited earlier: The agencies that fund most helmet research
do it for the specific purpose of promoting helmets. Funding is
available from Bell Sports and Snell, who have actually financed
distribution of certain pro-helmet papers. Harborview is a notable
beneficiary of this approach.
And it makes obvious financial sense to a corporation like Bell. If
their product is "proven" to work, no matter how sketchy the science,
their sales rise. If their product is mandated (due to lobbying by
Safe Kids, which they fund) their sales rise.
Indications of the bias in helmet research are not hard to find. For
example, Dr. Dorothy Robinson obtained Thompson & Rivara's "85%" data
from them before she became known as their most expert skeptic. She
was able to use their exact computation techniques to "prove" that
helmets reduced serious leg injuries by roughly 75% - IOW, to prove
that their treatment of data was either incompetent or fraudulent.
(They no longer release data to her.) As an expert professional
statistician, she has also been able to find many other faults and
falsehoods contained in their, and other, pro-helmet papers.
Another indicator of bias: An editor of a certain medical research
journal not only staunchly stated his belief (or prejudice) in favor
of helmets, but took the extreme step of soliciting rebuttals when he
published one paper that reached conclusions unfavorable to helmet
promotion. The rebuttal to the paper was included as an immediate
follow-up to the original paper. IOW, he was unwilling to let the
normal scientific discussion take place until he had attempted to
stack the deck.
Much can be learned from public records. In many cases, pro-helmet
conclusions are weak and easily rebutted. Another example: there
were claims that Australia's (and later New Zealand's) all-ages
mandatory helmet laws caused great decreases in serious head
injuries. It was through analysis of public records that helmet
skeptics were able to show that the drop in such injuries were less
than the drop in cycling caused by the MHLs - something the pro-helmet
crew was careful not to mention.
These facts are becoming more widely known, and the Cyclehelmets site
is one of the prime sources for such facts. I don't doubt that
researchers could uncover more pro-helmet distortions with more
funding; but I think the work done there is generally good, and very
necessary.
Finally, a detail: Steven M. Scharf (SMS) claims that speaking out
against helmet promotion falsehoods somehow promotes mandatory helmet
laws. This is nonsense of the highest order, it is complete and wild
speculation on his part, and is in direct contrast to my experience in
testifying against such laws.
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
> | IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
> | generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
> | that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
> |
> | I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
> | tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027
> |
> | - Frank Krygowski
>
> Don't put too much faith in the cyclehelmets.org folk. They generate their
> own agenda-driven babble, as illustrated below-
<snip>
Mike, no argument from anyone here about their agenda-driven babble, but
Frank is one of the "cyclehelmets.org folk," see
"http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html". Now you know where much of the
babble is coming from in his posts!
The editorial board of the "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation" on that
page is a who's who people with an anti-helmet agenda, and as you see
from their site there's a glaring lack of science and evidence in most
of their statements. They remind me of some of those right wing
organizations like the Family Research Council ("www.frc.org"), the
Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/), Intelligent Design
Network ("http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/) and the The National
Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org/). All
organizations that claim that they're doing objective "research" when
that's the furthest thing that they're interested in doing. I'm
surprised that BHRF didn't recruit Ben Stein to their list of patrons.
Chalo
>
> But Giro somehow manages to make hard
> foam with a thin plastic shell actually look like something someone would
> pay $200+ for.
The critical term is "someone".
I think they look like something "someone" would pay $200 for-- in
that a complete and total tool will probably pay $200 for a dried-up
dog turd if it comes with the proper marketing credentials.
Especially if he's been told it will surely save his life.
I'm just sayin'.
Chalo
SMS
Hey, women buy $5000 purses when a $25 purse will work just as well.
The person spending $200 on a Giro Ionos helmet is doing so with the
full knowledge that it will work no better at protecting their head than
a $40 helmet. Well actually some of the $40 helmets will work slightly
better, as they are designed to a higher standard, while the more
expensive helmets are designed to the minimum legal standard.
Mike Jacoubowsky
People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare say
that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that arguably
looks good and fits nicely than it does to pay a lot of extra $$$ to buy
pre-worn pre-torn jeans... and yet that's what a whole lot of people did not
all that many years ago.
We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same. We could buy generic-brand
food. We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more. We
could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
buildings and overpasses etc. We could buy Craftsman and never lust after
Snap-On.
Is that what you would recommend?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Chalo
>
> People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare say
> that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that arguably
> looks good and fits nicely than it does to pay a lot of extra $$$ to buy
> pre-worn pre-torn jeans... and yet that's what a whole lot of people did not
> all that many years ago.
>
> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same. We could buy generic-brand
> food. We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more. We
> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
> buildings and overpasses etc. We could buy Craftsman and never lust after
> Snap-On.
>
> Is that what you would recommend?
A bicycle helmet isn't like like a house, or food, or a car, or a set
of tools. It's more like a butt plug. Styling differences between
butt plugs, or bicycle helmets, are secondary to the fact that wearing
one makes the user look very silly indeed.
Chalo
Frank Krygowski
wrote:
> >
>
> People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare say
> that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that arguably
:-) And to prove how good helmets really look, you can walk or drive
through any city or suburb, go to any restaurant or mall, stop in at
any museum or concert, and count all the people that are using multi-
colored, swoopy-shaped styrofoam hats to enhance their appearance!
Face it, Mike: One has to drink a lot of special Kool-Aid to consider
this a good looking hat. http://tinyurl.com/2vjluk. Nobody but an
image-crazed bicyclist would ever wear that anywhere. It looks like
something a 1940s superhero might wear. It's a triumph of marketing.
In a few years, people will put its wearers in the same category as
these folks:
http://www.library.yale.edu/walpole/html/exhibitions/hair/index.html
> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same.
Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
facing the street?
> We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more.
It would be harsh, wouldn't it, to give up Escalades, and pass up the
opportunity to burn hundreds of barrels of oil to get ourselves and
all our outfitter gear to those restaurants and operas that need 4-
wheel-drive off-road capability!
> We
> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
> buildings and overpasses etc.
You mean like we actually do for most buildings? Ever gaze in rapture
at the architectural elegance of a Wal-Marts or a big box electronics
store?
(And "overpasses"? Are they supposed to be customized sculptural
designs?)
> We could buy Craftsman and never lust after Snap-On.
>
> Is that what you would recommend?
I'd recommend being less materialistic, and definitely less a slave to
fashion.
Sure, there can be beauty and art in an object, and there can be some
pleasure in owning something that's particularly nice.
But it would be interesting to bring the wisest men of the year 1300
AD in for consultation, and explain that we in America no longer have
to work as hard as we can to avoid starvation; that we never worry
much about bad harvests; that wild animals don't trouble us; that most
terrible diseases are tamed; and that we have leisure that people in
1300 AD could only dream about
I think the wisest men of that period would be appalled that we spend
most of our excess time and money just acquiring... shit. That is,
possessions that we don't really need, and soon don't really want, and
quickly discard in favor of more... shit.
Is that really the best goal in life?
Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
- Frank Krygowski
Mike Jacoubowsky
> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
I can't tell if you're making or missing my point. In the end, I think $200
helmets rate pretty darned low on the list of ways we've wronged humanity
and the planet.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc0a9b3c-29fa-4dfb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
SMS
>> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
>> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
>> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I can't tell if you're making or missing my point. In the end, I think $200
> helmets rate pretty darned low on the list of ways we've wronged humanity
> and the planet.
And of course Frank's statement is incorrect to begin with.
First of all, the helmet does have a specific function that numerous
scientific studies have shown to be valuable.
Second, it isn't made out of plastic (at least not the bulk of it), it's
mainly impact absorbing expanded polystyrene.
Third, it's not a hat.
As you pointed out in an earlier post, "cyclehelmets.org" is a
collection of agenda-driven babble, with no scientific basis for most of
their statements, and almost no citations. Take anything that they, or
their promoters write with many, many grains of salt. Sadly, if anyone
actually took their site seriously, it could result in a lot more
cycling deaths.
It's been a bad week in the Bay Area as far as bicycle accidents go.
Yesterday a bicycle messenger in San Francisco died from head injuries
that doctors think would not have been fatal had he been wearing a
helmet. A 13 year old in San Ramon was hit by a drunk driver, and she
suffered a concussion, but her helmet saved her from much more serious
injuries. There were three other non-fatal accidents as well.
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
> >> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
> >> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>
>
> First of all, the helmet does have a specific function that numerous
> scientific studies have shown to be valuable.
As has been pointed out many times before: Most "case-control"
studies have claimed benefits for helmets, up to the record prediction
of "85% reduction in head injuries." But such studies cannot help but
be flawed by using self-selected subjects - a problem that would void
any serious study. When non-self-selected data is used, helmets are
NOT seen to help.
Example: Kids in all of New Zealand were forced to wear helmets.
Helmet use by kids suddenly jumped from about 30% to about 90%. There
was NO detectable benefit in hospitalizations. But there was the
usual decrease in bike riding.
Case-control studies predict wonderful benefits if everyone wears
helmets. But actual studies of entire populations find no benefit
when everyone wears helmets. Guess which style of studies the helmet
industry funds?
See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1131
> Second, it isn't made out of plastic (at least not the bulk of it), it's
> mainly impact absorbing expanded polystyrene.
Try googling "define: polystyrene"
Results:
"A lightweight plastic often used in food service..."
"A plastic that comes in two forms - solid and expanded..."
"A type of plastic foam. It is often used in insulation, plates, egg
cartons, coffee cups and disposable food containers. Anything made of
this product is not very biodegradable and is also difficult to
recycle..."
"A plastic material..."
> Third, it's not a hat.
:-) And where do you wear _yours_?
> It's been a bad week in the Bay Area as far as bicycle accidents go.
> Yesterday a bicycle messenger in San Francisco died from head injuries
> that doctors think would not have been fatal had he been wearing a
> helmet.
Annually in the US, there are about 75,000 deaths from head
injuries.
Roughly 35,000 of them happen inside cars. Most of the rest happen in
simple falls around the home.
A maximum of about 600 happen to cyclists, probably less.
Nobody has ever demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in
bicycle deaths caused by massive helmet wearing, despite the doctors
who have bought the publicity, but not read the real research.
Will those doctors get behind this campaign?
http://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/index.html
- Frank Krygowski
N8N
wrote:
>
> Is that what you would recommend?
Now I'm gonna have nightmares.
nate
(jealously hoarding all the S-K tools that I inherited from my late
grandfather...)
N8N
> Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
> streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
> facing the street?
If I could buy a mcmansion for $200K I would consider drinking the
kool-aid.
You don't wanna know how much we paid for our tiny 1940's house on an
equally tiny lot. DC area real estate is ludicrous, even after the
recent "adjustments."
nate
Peter Cole
> Will those doctors get behind this campaign?
>
> http://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/index.html
Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
(other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
bike rides.
SMS
Try the good cities in the Bay Area, i.e. Palo Alto, Cupertino, etc. The
McMansions (or monster houses as they're called here) would sell for
about $2,000,000. The older tract homes, often with more character but
less square feet can be purchased for 1 to 1.5 million. Plus they've not
come down with the real estate slump, though they haven't been going up
either. The city's with top-rated public schools have been immune (so
far) from the real estate slump in the Bay Area. The areas with bad
public schools have seen big declines, 20-35%. When the school bond
measures are on the ballot even those without school kids vote for them.
SMS
> Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
> my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
> (other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
> bike rides.
With head curtain air bags on most new cars, I doubt if a helmet would
help a whole lot more. That web site mentions race car drivers, but
AFAIK, race cars don't have head curtain air bags. Even without head
curtain air bags, being inside a steel safety cage is a lot different
than riding a bicycle.
There are a plethora of studies showing the benefit of bicycle helmets
in head-impact crashes on bicycles, and no one disputes the benefits of
helmets should a head impact crash occur (well maybe the people at
cyclehelmets.org dispute it, but no one without some strange agenda
disputes it). Are there any studies, or even predictions about the
benefit of wearing helmets in passenger cars?
Frank Krygowski
> Peter Cole wrote:
> > Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
> > my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
> > (other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
> > bike rides.
>
> With head curtain air bags on most new cars, I doubt if a helmet would
> help a whole lot more.
My cars don't have those side curtain airbags. In fact, none of the
cars I've ever owned have had those. In fact, only a tiny percentage
of cars on the road have those. Do yours?
What should we do about the horror of people riding helmetless in cars
without side curtain air bags? This tragedy will be sure to continue
for at least fifteen years, until all cars without completely
inflatable interiors are off the road. (Oh, the humanity!)
And why should we spend hundreds of dollars for sophisticated
explosive air bags and sensitive electronic triggers, when the same
could be achieved by a thin foam hat?
> That web site mentions race car drivers, but
> AFAIK, race cars don't have head curtain air bags. Even without head
> curtain air bags, being inside a steel safety cage is a lot different
> than riding a bicycle.
It certainly is! Because that "steel safety cage" is what causes the
greatest number of the head injury fatalities in America. (Well, that
and the side window glass.) That's what your head impacts during a
car crash.
> There are a plethora of studies showing the benefit of bicycle helmets
> in head-impact crashes on bicycles,
And many better studies showing that entire populations donning
helmets do not demonstrate reduced head injury rates, once you account
for the inevitable drop in cycling.
> and no one disputes the benefits of
> helmets should a head impact crash occur (well maybe the people at
> cyclehelmets.org dispute it, but no one without some strange agenda
> disputes it).
Steven, I know you purport to not read my posts - despite occasionally
slipping and responding to them. Bbut surely, it's sunk in by now
that even if 90% of the cyclists in a country wear helmets every time
they ride, the rate of serious head injury does not decrease! The
citations have been given so many times, you should have them
memorized.
Now tell us: Given that the above is true, how do you justify your
statement "no one disputes the benefits of helmets should a head
impact crash occur"?
It seems the possibilities are these:
a) People get into lots more head impact crashes once they start
wearing helmets, and this cancels out their supposed protective
benefits.
b) Helmets protect against some aspects of impact (like, direct
impact at low enough speeds) but worsen other aspects (like, changing
oblique near misses into glancing blows that sharply rotate the brain,
or otherwise increasing the more damaging rotational acceleration).
c) Helmets simply don't help at all, except for impacts that wouldn't
have caused serious injury anyway. They are merely "scratch & bruise"
protection.
Which of those viewpoints do you subscribe to? Or is there some other
explanation?
> Are there any studies, or even predictions about the
> benefit of wearing helmets in passenger cars?
See http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nigel.html
or http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/carhelm.html
I once had a link to the original study, but it seems to have expired.
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
(and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
Mike Jacoubowsky
| (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
| by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
There is one very good reason I often continue to wear my helmet after a
ride.
Helmet hair. :>)
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mVWZj.165$0R.5@trndny05...
Frank Krygowski
>
> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
medical license.
- Frank Krygowski
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
>> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>
> And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
> based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
> and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>
> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
> medical license.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
made on cyclehelmets.org
Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.
You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
data yourself.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f678f772-00aa-4ec1...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Keats
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> writes:
>>> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
>>> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
>>> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>>
>> And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
>> based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
>> and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>>
>> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
>> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
>> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
>> medical license.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
> severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
> made on cyclehelmets.org
>
> Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
> thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
> that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.
Wouldn't it be oh so kewl to have Ike for a customer?
As your fitting him to his bike you could suggest he
step-up progress wrt Civil Rights, and put a bee in his
bonnet to watch out for the Richard Millstone Nixon guy
who's too loose with his use of bad words. And besides,
his eyes are too close together. Maybe get invited to an
exclusive lobsterfest. Black tie, & tasteful lobster bib
that does /not/ say stuff on it like: "Barry Goldwater is
a Warmongering Idiot."
OTOH, maybe it could work. I dunno.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
r15...@aol.com
> In article <iso_j.6125$nW2.5...@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
Ike was all right. He made some big mistakes as president. The aid
structure to and policy toward S. Viet Nam was not well thought-out.
Frank Krygowski
wrote:
> >> I think the reason that most (all) people don't wear helmets in cars
> >> (and haven't in the past) is because they feel the benefit is outweighed
> >> by the inconvenience. I feel the same way about bike helmets.
>
> > And most people who use them for bicycling are judging the "benefit"
> > based on propaganda that grossly exaggerates the danger of bicycling,
> > and grossly exaggerates the protective effect of helmets.
>
> > Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
> > cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
> > Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
> > medical license.
>
> severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
> made on cyclehelmets.org
>
> Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
> thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
> that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.
>
> You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
> are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
> data yourself.
Sorry, Mike, but you seem to have misread what I wrote.
In my post above, I didn't mention _physicians_ saying cycling is
dangerous. On the contrary, I mentioned a physician promoting
cycling; but I said "there would be people calling for revocation of
his medical license." Those "people" are not necessarily physicians.
They are the aggressive handwringers who know what's best for everyone
else's safety.
However, some of them _are_ physicians, whether or not they are
"physicians in general." From http://tinyurl.com/3l9odz
"Dr. Gary Smith, director of the Center of Injury Research and Policy
at Children's, said bicycle accidents are one of the main causes of
traumatic brain injury in children. That's why he is working with the
Columbus City Council to introduce an ordinance that would require
children younger than 18 to wear helmets while using bikes,
skateboards, scooters and skates in the city."
Anyone who advocates a mandatory helmet law MUST believe that it's
better for a person to not cycle, than for a person to cycle without a
helmet. They MUST believe that cycling is very dangerous. Surely you
can't disagree with that?
- Frank Krygowski
Ryan Cousineau
<bc0feec9-ae62-4680...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Frank, I categorically oppose MHLs, but even I can disagree with that.
It's entirely possible (however ill-informed) to believe that helmets
transform a hazardous activity into a safe and healthy one.
Indeed, the general thrust of most safety legislation is, roughly, that
safety can be increased dramatically through the use of safer procedures
or equipment.
To give a specific example, seat belts indisputably increase the safety
of being in a car crash, and not by a little bit.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
SMS
>> Think of Dr. Paul Dudley White, who convinced President Eisenhower to
>> cycle for health. If he'd done that in today's Bell Sports /
>> Harborview world, he'd have people calling for revocation of his
>> medical license.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You have this way of
> severely undermining whatever slim scientific basis there is for the claims
> made on cyclehelmets.org
There is no scientific basis, even slim, for the claims made on
cyclehelmets.org. You were spot-on with your description of that site
being a collection of "agenda-driven babble."
> Physicians are not, in general, telling people that cycling is an unsafe
> thing to do. I hear from customers all the time that their doctor told them
> that riding a bike would be a good thing for them to do.
Not just for cardiovascular and weight reasons either. For patients with
knee problems that invariably result from running as exercise, cycling
is often recommended as an activity that has less impact than running.
OTOH, there are often groups of ER physicians and nurses that are
involved int the helmet campaigns simply because they see the enormous
difference in the severity of head injuries between helmeted and
non-helmeted cyclists involved in a head impact crash.
> You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
> are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
> data yourself.
You're new here, huh?
I will say that there does seem to be a inordinate amount of emphasis by
law enforcement and the media on the importance of wearing helmets, and
almost no emphasis on other aspects of bike safety such as not riding on
sidewalks, obeying traffic signs, etc.. This can give a sense of
invincibility to kids, when they think that as long as they're wearing a
helmet they can be stupid.
Frank Krygowski
> In article
> <bc0feec9-ae62-4680-810e-3631dedef...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyone who advocates a mandatory helmet law MUST believe that it's
> > better for a person to not cycle, than for a person to cycle without a
> > helmet. They MUST believe that cycling is very dangerous. Surely you
> > can't disagree with that?
>
> Frank, I categorically oppose MHLs, but even I can disagree with that.
> It's entirely possible (however ill-informed) to believe that helmets
> transform a hazardous activity into a safe and healthy one.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. If, as you say, they
believe cycling is "a hazardous activity," then you're confirming what
I said - that they believe cycling is very dangerous. No?
If someone advocates making bicycling without a helmet illegal, they
must think it's better for a person to not cycle, than to cycle
without a helmet. Isn't that exactly what such laws say?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> There is no scientific basis, even slim, for the claims made on
> cyclehelmets.org. You were spot-on with your description of that site
> being a collection of "agenda-driven babble."
I invite anyone to visit www.cyclehelmets.org and check his claim that
there is no scientific basis for any claims made there. You may wish
to look at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf
or some of the papers at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1146
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
>> Anyone who advocates a mandatory helmet law MUST believe that it's
>> better for a person to not cycle, than for a person to cycle without a
>> helmet. They MUST believe that cycling is very dangerous. Surely you
>> can't disagree with that?
>
> Frank, I categorically oppose MHLs, but even I can disagree with that.
> It's entirely possible (however ill-informed) to believe that helmets
> transform a hazardous activity into a safe and healthy one.
The proponents of MHLs are of the mindset "let's pass more laws to make
everything safer for everyone." They don't believe that it's better for
a person not to cycle rather than cycle without a helmet, they believe
that the requirement to wear a helmet will simply mean that everyone
that doesn't already wear a helmet will start wearing one, and no one
will stop cycling.
There's been no evidence that helmet laws, even adult helmet laws, cause
any reduction in the number of cyclists. The same thing happened with
motorcycle helmet laws--there was grumbling by the few riders that
didn't want to wear helmets that they should have the choice of how safe
they wanted to be, there were a few groups that made up stories about
how helmets made riding less safe, but in the end everyone either put on
a helmet or rode without one and risked a ticket.
Other than perhaps some babble-based, non-scientific, agenda-driven,
organizations like cyclehelmets.org, no one disputes that helmets do
make cycling safer in the unlikely event of a head-impact crash, so the
MHL people do have a basis for their actions, but MHLs avoid looking at
the big picture of safety which I believe gives many riders (and
parents) a false sense of security.
MHLs are cheap to implement. Enforcement is sporadic or non-existent.
They probably negatively impact safety because they're seen as a
substitute for actions that would have more of an effect on safety such
as properly designed streets, traffic calming, and bicycle education.
I wonder what the delta is between adult helmet usage with and without
an MHL. There are no MHLs for adults in my area, yet helmet usage is
very high, at least 80%. Education works almost as well as compulsion in
terms of increasing helmet wearing rates.
Frank Krygowski
>
> There's been no evidence that helmet laws, even adult helmet laws, cause
> any reduction in the number of cyclists.
As with most of Steven M. Scharf's helmet pronouncements, this
demonstrates near-total ignorance of the facts. The evidence of
significant cycling reductions is incontrovertible. It's appeared
whenever serious before/after counts have been done, and the reason
for the reductions has been confirmed by telephone surveys in at least
one case. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf, for
example. Or try any of the links at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1096
> The same thing happened with
> motorcycle helmet laws--there was grumbling by the few riders that
> didn't want to wear helmets that they should have the choice of how safe
> they wanted to be, there were a few groups that made up stories about
> how helmets made riding less safe, but in the end everyone either put on
> a helmet or rode without one and risked a ticket.
And yet, when motorcycle helmet laws have been repealed, motorcycle
sales and registrations have consistently risen.
Mr. Scharf really should stick to his area of expertise: coffee.
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
> Ike was all right. He made some big mistakes as president. The aid
> structure to and policy toward S. Viet Nam was not well thought-out.
His presidency failed because he didn't follow his own instincts, but
let others with their own agenda advise him. Getting us into Vietnam was
his biggest error. However if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated we
wouldn't have been in Vietnam for so long.
SMS
<snip>
>
> You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim the helmet companies
> are scaring people with bogus data, you shouldn't be spewing equally suspect
> data yourself.
It's not that the data is bogus, it's that it's out of context. No one
disputes that helmets provide a big benefit in the event of crash
involving impact to the head, but the number of such crashes is
relatively low.
Not to defend cyclehelmets.org, it represents the worst kind of fake
neo-con science, right up there with intelligent design and the denial
of the human impact on global warming, but the emphasis by the media on
helmets and the lack of reporting on other aspects of safe cycling can
be annoying. Accidents where a helmet saved the cyclists life, or
prevented serious injury, as well as stories where the lack of a helmet
resulted in serious injury or death are popular newspaper stories. Just
Google News "bicycle helmet saves life" and look at some of the results:
-----
"http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1046031"
Cyclist uses head, helmet worked
"http://www.chronline.com/story.php?subaction=showfull&id=1211305472&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1"
Life Saved by Bike Helmet--Non-Injury Collision Between Car and Bike:
Teenager’s Skull Not Smashed When Head Goes Through Windshield,
Responders Praise Helmet He Wore
"http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2008/05/09/5518826.html"
“A proper bicycle helmet would certainly have prevented the head injury
sustained by the child,” said Const. John Reurink.
"http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_9367567?source=most_viewed"
Bennington Police cite bike helmet as saving local man
"http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/4523636a6497.html"
Helmet saves cyclist's life
Where are the stories like "Cyclists life saved by riding on the right
side of the road," and "Cyclists life saved by not riding on the sidewalk."
-----
Wearing a helmet is a good idea, but it's become a substitute for safe
riding, especially by children and teens.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> It's not that the data is bogus, it's that it's out of context. No one
> disputes that helmets provide a big benefit in the event of crash
> involving impact to the head, but the number of such crashes is
> relatively low.
>
> Not to defend cyclehelmets.org, it represents the worst kind of fake
> neo-con science, right up there with intelligent design and the denial
As usual, Steven M. Scharf expects others to accept his opinions as
gospel, simply because they are his - "The World's Greatest Expert."
He seems completely incapable of discussing actual data.
If you think this is "the worst kind of non-science," then tell us
specifically what is wrong with it. Point to actual numbers. If
they're wrong, give us the correct ones. If the math is in error,
show us the errors. Start with http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf
If you can't point to specifics, you shouldn't pretend you know what
you're talking about.
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same. We could buy generic-brand
> food. We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more. We
> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
> buildings and overpasses etc. We could buy Craftsman and never lust after
> Snap-On.
You mean you don't lust after Harbor Freight tools?
Craftsman hand tools are pretty low quality, it's just that they'll
replace them free forever, and few people use them in a way that a
professional would use tools.
I've had tools replaced at Sears after 25+ years, tools I bought back in
college. No hassle at all. Probably wouldn't have been worth it to buy
Snap-On for home use. However when I bought an impact wrench I did go
with the Ingersoll Rand 231, the super-standard, rather than something
from Harbor Freight.
Nate Nagel
This is for the same reason that auto mfgrs. tout safety features like
multiple airbags and crumple zones and don't mention fundamentals like
handling, braking, and acceleration. They just assume that people are
going to crash, because they drive like idiots.
Sadly, they're right.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>> I will say that there does seem to be a inordinate amount of emphasis
>> by law enforcement and the media on the importance of wearing helmets,
>> and almost no emphasis on other aspects of bike safety such as not
>> riding on sidewalks, obeying traffic signs, etc.. This can give a
>> sense of invincibility to kids, when they think that as long as
>> they're wearing a helmet they can be stupid.
>
> This is for the same reason that auto mfgrs. tout safety features like
> multiple airbags and crumple zones and don't mention fundamentals like
> handling, braking, and acceleration. They just assume that people are
> going to crash, because they drive like idiots.
>
> Sadly, they're right.
But most drivers do obey basic traffic laws. They make some semblance of
a stop at stop signs. They usually stop at red lights, other than some
serial red light running just as it turns red. They drive on the right
(or on the left as the case may be). There is a lot of enforcement of
the rules, with heavy fines, increased insurance cost, and the
possibility of loss of license, if they rack up too many tickets.
Vehicle manufacturers do mention acceleration and braking (at least when
it's good) though handling is harder to measure objectively.
Promotion of bicycle helmets is widespread, yet other important aspects
of bicycle safety are ignored, as if the helmet is a license to ride
unsafely (though of course the non-helmeted riders are equally clueless
in other aspects of safety.
It's all those idiot drivers that are often alert enough to not mow down
that kid that comes unexpectedly off the sidewalk into their path, or
across a driveway on the sidewalk at high speed.
N8N
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> >> I will say that there does seem to be a inordinate amount of emphasis
> >> by law enforcement and the media on the importance of wearing helmets,
> >> and almost no emphasis on other aspects of bike safety such as not
> >> riding on sidewalks, obeying traffic signs, etc.. This can give a
> >> sense of invincibility to kids, when they think that as long as
> >> they're wearing a helmet they can be stupid.
>
> > This is for the same reason that auto mfgrs. tout safety features like
> > multiple airbags and crumple zones and don't mention fundamentals like
> > handling, braking, and acceleration. They just assume that people are
> > going to crash, because they drive like idiots.
>
> > Sadly, they're right.
>
> But most drivers do obey basic traffic laws. They make some semblance of
> a stop at stop signs. They usually stop at red lights, other than some
> serial red light running just as it turns red. They drive on the right
> (or on the left as the case may be). There is a lot of enforcement of
> the rules, with heavy fines, increased insurance cost, and the
> possibility of loss of license, if they rack up too many tickets.
I disagree on all counts. At least in my area (metro DC area) most
drivers are incompetent and should not be on the road. Yes, they do
sort-of stop at stop signs, and they don't typically run red lights
other than as you describe. They also don't use signals, don't check
mirrors, don't merge properly, don't drive in the proper lane, and
generally just make up their own rules of the road and then get all
mad when you don't accomodate their poor driving. Enforcement is
pretty much nil save for running radar in the median of highways,
whose speed limits are posted 15+ MPH under the natural flow speed of
any given road. In short, I consider myself a certified
(certifiable?) car nut, but living around here has pretty much taken
away all enjoyment of driving.
> Vehicle manufacturers do mention acceleration and braking (at least when
> it's good) though handling is harder to measure objectively.
I don't see that so much. I do see lots of ads touting IIHS crash
test results etc.
> Promotion of bicycle helmets is widespread, yet other important aspects
> of bicycle safety are ignored, as if the helmet is a license to ride
> unsafely (though of course the non-helmeted riders are equally clueless
> in other aspects of safety.
I agree, although I don't see that I'm exposed to anything bicycle
related nearly as much as I am automotive advertising and PSA's. I
consider the two situations to be analagous.
> It's all those idiot drivers that are often alert enough to not mow down
> that kid that comes unexpectedly off the sidewalk into their path, or
> across a driveway on the sidewalk at high speed.
Agreed, but some days I think that that margin of safety is being
tested. Overly aggressive cyclists and/or ones that don't follow the
rules (like the fellow I saw this AM that lane split up to a stop
light and then ran the red across a four lane road) combined with
inattentive, incompetent drivers = a mess. I'm surprised that more
people aren't seriously injured.
nate
riggo...@hotmail.com
>At least in my area (metro DC area) most
>drivers are incompetent and should not be on the road.
Driving on the Capital Beltway = Death Wish
Bicyclng in and around the Nation's Capital = Insane Death Wish
It helps if your are basically nuts...
N8N
So I'm all good then. If you can just help me get over my misanthropy
I'll be set.
BTW if you think the Beltway is bad, try driving the Anacostia Freeway
when traffic is heavy but still moving quickly. It's an experience
not to be missed.
nate
riggo...@hotmail.com
The old "It'll-Cost-Ya" Freeway...been there, done that...ain't goin'
back for more.
These days, I'm up and down MD Route 4 a lot....heading into the MD
"countryside". Also, a death trap. One of those old winding, hilly
country roads designed for about a tenth of the traffic they are
carrying and at half the speed. Ironically, parts of it would make a
great road for cycling-- semi-hilly, nice scenery, fairly wide
shoulders with "Share The Road" signs But, man, all it takes is one
idiot on his cell phone drinking a big gulp at 90 mph to cross the
line...
Frank Krygowski
I've been there, I've done that, & I have friends that do it all the
time - that is, almost every day. And no, they're not macho extreme
risk takers. They're just competent cyclists.
Don't be such a fearful wimp. If you can't handle it, learn the
skills, or admit that it's _your_ shortcoming.
- Frank Krygowski
Nate Nagel
Actually based on my observations, most of them DO have a death wish.
Based on your posts to rec.autos.driving, I have no problem believing
that the morons on bikes I see every day *are* your friends. Arrogand,
rude, and consistently in flagrant violation of the law.
riggo...@hotmail.com
> On May 29, 11:29 am, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bicyclng in and around the Nation's Capital = Insane Death Wish
>
> I've been there, I've done that, & I have friends that do it all the
> time - that is, almost every day. And no, they're not macho extreme
> risk takers. They're just competent cyclists.
They may be competent cyclists and totally macho-less...but they are,
indeed, risk-takers. No big deal, really...I count myself in all 3
categories as well.
>
> Don't be such a fearful wimp. If you can't handle it, learn the
> skills, or admit that it's _your_ shortcoming.
More useless insult-laden advice that will be totally ignored. Not
even original or very entertaining. Well done.
> - Frank Krygowski
Ryan Cousineau
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Not to defend cyclehelmets.org, it represents the worst kind of fake
> neo-con science, right up there with intelligent design and the denial
> of the human impact on global warming, but the emphasis by the media on
> helmets and the lack of reporting on other aspects of safe cycling can
> be annoying. Accidents where a helmet saved the cyclists life, or
> prevented serious injury, as well as stories where the lack of a helmet
> resulted in serious injury or death are popular newspaper stories. Just
> Google News "bicycle helmet saves life" and look at some of the results:
[...]
> Wearing a helmet is a good idea, but it's become a substitute for safe
> riding, especially by children and teens.
Not to be peevish Steven, but to use some medical jargon, what's the
Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for helmets?
I'll accept prevention of hospitalization or a substantial mitigation of
any injury serious enough to require hospitalization as therapeutic
benefits for this question.
The question is sincere inasmuch as I don't know the answer, but I'd
like to. However, I'm prepared to guess at the correct magnitude.
Ryan Cousineau
<35757085-3d8d-444f...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think you underestimate the enthusiasm which some parties have for
social engineering through legislation. The proverbial phrase is "if we
could save just one life..."
Tom Keats
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> writes:
> In article <Eue%j.5498$Ri....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not to defend cyclehelmets.org, it represents the worst kind of fake
>> neo-con science, right up there with intelligent design and the denial
>> of the human impact on global warming, but the emphasis by the media on
>> helmets and the lack of reporting on other aspects of safe cycling can
>> be annoying. Accidents where a helmet saved the cyclists life, or
>> prevented serious injury, as well as stories where the lack of a helmet
>> resulted in serious injury or death are popular newspaper stories. Just
>> Google News "bicycle helmet saves life" and look at some of the results:
> [...]
>> Wearing a helmet is a good idea, but it's become a substitute for safe
>> riding, especially by children and teens.
>
> Not to be peevish Steven,
It seems to me, /everybody's/ peevish about bicycle helmets.
Anyways, did you see the infomercial in the Friday May 30
Metro newspaper (pg 20) (metronews.ca) about the Adams Run Bike[tm]?
It's basically a pedalless bicycle-shaped scooter (juvenile
hobby horse,) so youngsters can get the feel of balancing and
directing a bike without the added complication of powering it.
If I had kids that I knew about, I just might be inclined to
set 'em up with this thing. But I'd sure supervise the heck
outa them.
I think it should certainly deprecate those stupid training
wheel thingies.
> but to use some medical jargon, what's the
> Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for helmets?
>
> I'll accept prevention of hospitalization or a substantial mitigation of
> any injury serious enough to require hospitalization as therapeutic
> benefits for this question.
>
> The question is sincere inasmuch as I don't know the answer, but I'd
> like to. However, I'm prepared to guess at the correct magnitude.
People associate bicycling with horseback riding.
It's pretty easy to fall off a horse and land on
yer head. But a bike ain't a horse (thank Goodness.)
In fact, unlike horseback riders, we cyclists generally
don't fall /off/ our mounts, we fall /with/ them.
Those rodeo bronco busters need helmets.
A Stetson just doesn't cut it.
Yeah, everybody's peeved about helmets.
At least the folks who make points one
way or another about 'em. Including myself.
I guess it's just one of those issues, like
abortion, and whatever Diet Coke is really
good for, besides making it explode w/ Mentos.
Nate Nagel
AKA "it's for the chiiiiiillllldrun." Having worked briefly in the
automotive industry I'm all too familiar with it.
Frank Krygowski
> On May 29, 5:41 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 29, 11:29 am, riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Bicyclng in and around the Nation's Capital = Insane Death Wish
>
> > I've been there, I've done that, & I have friends that do it all the
> > time - that is, almost every day. And no, they're not macho extreme
> > risk takers. They're just competent cyclists.
>
> They may be competent cyclists and totally macho-less...but they are,
> indeed, risk-takers. No big deal, really...I count myself in all 3
> categories as well.
Everybody is a risk taker. Obviously, living invariably involves
risk. Deal with it.
> > Don't be such a fearful wimp. If you can't handle it, learn the
> > skills, or admit that it's _your_ shortcoming.
>
> More useless insult-laden advice that will be totally ignored. Not
> even original or very entertaining. Well done.
May I point out that you began this by calling my friends and I (and
others) insane? Most people would consider that an insult, and not an
original or entertaining one.
My advice stands: Cycling in DC can be done very safely. It merely
requires competence. Many people have that competence. If you don't
have it, you can learn. Start here: http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm
Until you gain that competence, don't comment on that which you don't
understand. And don't belittle your betters.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If someone advocates making bicycling without a helmet illegal, they
> > must think it's better for a person to not cycle, than to cycle
> > without a helmet. Isn't that exactly what such laws say?
>
> I think you underestimate the enthusiasm which some parties have for
> social engineering through legislation. The proverbial phrase is "if we
> could save just one life..."
Perhaps I do underestimate the enthusiasm - but I see that as a
separate question. Again: Those with this enthusiasm must think it's
better for a person to not cycle, than to cycle without a helmet.
That's exactly what they're trying to pass into law.
- Frank Krygowski
Ozark Bicycle
> On May 29, 10:09 pm, the anonymous riggodee...@hotmail.com wrote:
<much snippage of Krygo-Krap>
> And don't belittle your betters.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
If you take your own advice, you won't be doing much belittling, will
you, Franky? And, since belittling is your major Usenet stock-in-
trade, you won't have much to say. eh?
riggo...@hotmail.com
> May I point out that you began this by calling my friends and I (and
> others) insane? Most people would consider that an insult, and not an
> original or entertaining one.
Nobody called you or your friends anything. You don't really have to
work so hard to invent insults. I'm betting you probably earn plenty
all day long without even breaking a sweat.
>
> My advice stands: Cycling in DC can be done very safely. It merely
> requires competence. Many people have that competence. If you don't
> have it, you can learn. Start here:http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.ht
Your "advice" and falsely superior attitude is probably what keeps
more potential rec. cyclists on the couch than anything, traffic
included. So you can cycle comptently in DC, BFD. Tell that to the
paramedics after an Escalade doing 90 mph deposits your sorry ass in
the gutter.
> Until you gain that competence, don't comment on that which you don't
> understand. And don't belittle your betters.
The only thing you seem to be "better" at than anybody is being a
certified asshole. Nobody will stand in your way of that prize.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Brandy...@gmail.com
> On May 31, 12:23 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > May I point out that you began this by calling my friends and I (and
> > others) insane? Most people would consider that an insult, and not an
> > original or entertaining one.
> Nobody called you or your friends anything. You don't really have to
> work so hard to invent insults. I'm betting you probably earn plenty
> all day long without even breaking a sweat.
Yeah, you did call him something. And me too. And everyone that rides
a bike in the DC area. You called us all insane. I don't really care
but others may not be so forgiving. If you call someone something
derogatory, at least have the decency to not try and weasel out of it
later.
> > My advice stands: Cycling in DC can be done very safely. It merely
> > requires competence. Many people have that competence. If you don't
> > have it, you can learn. Start here:http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.ht
>
> Your "advice" and falsely superior attitude is probably what keeps
> more potential rec. cyclists on the couch than anything, traffic
> included. So you can cycle comptently in DC, BFD. Tell that to the
> paramedics after an Escalade doing 90 mph deposits your sorry ass in
> the gutter.
Doubt he is the reason for all the fat-asses driving a sofa instead of
riding. Your wishing him into the gutter is far worse than anything
he wrote to you. Your retort was classless and childish. He may have
been a tad haughty and curt but he did offer you a link to educational
materials which seemed sincere. Try and be more mature.
> > Until you gain that competence, don't comment on that which you don't
> > understand. And don't belittle your betters.
>
> The only thing you seem to be "better" at than anybody is being a
> certified asshole. Nobody will stand in your way of that prize.
Again, you go right for a childish and uncalled-for response. I will
not be umpiring the certified asshole contest, but I bet you at least
get a podium position yourself.
Zoot Katz
wrote, in part:
>
>Your "advice" and falsely superior attitude is probably what keeps
>more potential rec. cyclists on the couch than anything, traffic
>included.
Bull dadda. If some whimp's skin is too thin for Usenet then they'd
probably have a shit-hemmorage and totally disintegrate if a scud
jockey ever threatened them with expletives or a dirty look let alone
a brush-pass, thrown object, fists or weapon.
If they can't handle that kind of reality then they're better off
staying on the couch.
Frank is a realist. He is always saying, and I paraphrase here,
"Bicycling is not that dangerous. Don't make it out to be."
--
zk
Ryan Cousineau
wrote:
> In article <rcousine-8DFF37.02095631052008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> writes:
> > In article <Eue%j.5498$Ri....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> > SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> Wearing a helmet is a good idea, but it's become a substitute for safe
> >> riding, especially by children and teens.
> >
> > Not to be peevish Steven,
>
> It seems to me, /everybody's/ peevish about bicycle helmets.
>
> Anyways, did you see the infomercial in the Friday May 30
> Metro newspaper (pg 20) (metronews.ca) about the Adams Run Bike[tm]?
>
> It's basically a pedalless bicycle-shaped scooter (juvenile
> hobby horse,) so youngsters can get the feel of balancing and
> directing a bike without the added complication of powering it.
I've seen that and similar before.
> If I had kids that I knew about, I just might be inclined to
> set 'em up with this thing. But I'd sure supervise the heck
> outa them.
Well...one trick you can pull is to remove the pedals from a
conventional bike and drop the seat lower. It works quite well.
> I think it should certainly deprecate those stupid training
> wheel thingies.
>
> People associate bicycling with horseback riding.
> It's pretty easy to fall off a horse and land on
> yer head. But a bike ain't a horse (thank Goodness.)
> In fact, unlike horseback riders, we cyclists generally
> don't fall /off/ our mounts, we fall /with/ them.
Horseback riders have a bigger problem, which is that falling off a
horse involves a rather longer trip to the ground. Apparently the injury
statistics for horse-riding are impressively grim:
http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40/n6/full/3101280a.html
How does 7x more dangerous than motorcycling (per hour of participant
exposure) grab you?
Frank Krygowski
> In article <s07r1g.3j...@vcn.bc.ca>, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
> > People associate bicycling with horseback riding.
> > It's pretty easy to fall off a horse and land on
> > yer head. But a bike ain't a horse (thank Goodness.)
> > In fact, unlike horseback riders, we cyclists generally
> > don't fall /off/ our mounts, we fall /with/ them.
>
> Horseback riders have a bigger problem, which is that falling off a
> horse involves a rather longer trip to the ground. Apparently the injury
> statistics for horse-riding are impressively grim:
>
> http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40/n6/full/3101280a.html
>
> How does 7x more dangerous than motorcycling (per hour of participant
> exposure) grab you?
And, of course, motorcycling is many times more dangerous than bicycle
riding. Failure Analysis Associates gave the fatality risk of on-road
motorcycling as 8.8 fatalities per million hours, vs. cycling's 0.26
fatalities per million hours. That makes cycling over 30 times safer
than motorcycling, and over 200 times safer than horse riding.
Of course, FAA's estimates may not be perfectly accurate. Another
source* gives on-road motorcycling 7.66 fatalities per million hours,
and bicycling 0.41 fatalities per million hours. That makes cycling
only about 16 times safer than motorcycling, and only about 116 times
safer than horseback riding.
Either way -
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
- Frank Krygowski
* Robinson, D.L., "Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws," Accident
Analysis & Prevention, Vol 28, No 4, pp 463-475, 1996
Dane Buson
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: [stuff I snipped, but which was pretty good]
>
> I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Mongoose here, which is another
> Pacific/Dorel brand. They've tried to sell at both ends of the
> market with the same brand, which is confusing -- and I wouldn't
> guess works well at the high end of the spectrum.
Semi-OT: The most mind blowing thing I saw this week.
A mongoose with a Rohloff hub. I just sat and stared for a minute. I
do know the fellow who owns it. He makes his own bikes (welding) and
specializes in cargo bikes/trailers and odd bikes. Next time I'm near
and have a camera handy I'll take a snap.
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
"How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are for. I only
coded it."
(Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting)
Chalo
>
> Semi-OT: The most mind blowing thing I saw this week.
>
> A mongoose with a Rohloff hub. I just sat and stared for a minute. I
> do know the fellow who owns it. He makes his own bikes (welding) and
> specializes in cargo bikes/trailers and odd bikes. Next time I'm near
> and have a camera handy I'll take a snap.
I know Colin. I gave him that '85 Mongoose ATB frame & fork, in
fact. It was just one of way too many things that I was going to have
to carry back to Austin from Seattle if I kept it. The lucky bastard
also got my two buckets of assorted nuts and bolts, which I have
missed many times since then.
Back in the mid-'80s, Mongeese were real bikes. They were welded, but
that was just a matter of their BMX racing lineage rather than a sign
of being cheap and cruddy. They were very fashionable, and even sort
of expensive (like all MTBs at the time). I do love the implied
subversion of putting a Rohloff on a 'goose, though.
Chalo
Dane Buson
> On Jun 3, 4:54 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Semi-OT: The most mind blowing thing I saw this week.
>>
>> A mongoose with a Rohloff hub. I just sat and stared for a minute. I
>> do know the fellow who owns it. He makes his own bikes (welding) and
>> specializes in cargo bikes/trailers and odd bikes. Next time I'm near
>> and have a camera handy I'll take a snap.
>
> I know Colin. I gave him that '85 Mongoose ATB frame & fork, in
> fact. It was just one of way too many things that I was going to have
> to carry back to Austin from Seattle if I kept it. The lucky bastard
> also got my two buckets of assorted nuts and bolts, which I have
> missed many times since then.
The value of a bin of random bolts/nuts/strange shaped scraps of metal
is not to be underestimated. Old parts that make their way to the
recycling bucket tend to get any interesting parts stripped off and
thrown into a bin in my workshop.
I chit-chatted with Colin Saturday at 2020 cycle while I was picking up
a used Freeradical and accessories for a side project. I see him
semi-infrequently around town and at various biking social functions.
> Back in the mid-'80s, Mongeese were real bikes. They were welded, but
> that was just a matter of their BMX racing lineage rather than a sign
> of being cheap and cruddy. They were very fashionable, and even sort
> of expensive (like all MTBs at the time). I do love the implied
> subversion of putting a Rohloff on a 'goose, though.
I do know that not all on them are junk. But still, as you mentioned,
definitely a subversive choice. Speaking of expensive bike parts, I
got buy-in on the concept of electric assist for the Extracycle from the
spouse...well, until I told her the pricetag for the StokeMonkey. [1]
It was the experience of watching me pedal us home from Madrona beach
(all four of us on one bike) that got the conversation started. It
wasn't really that bad (slow on the uphill part of course), but it would
have been nicer if it was cooler.
[1] Though I'm thinking next spring, when my work hands out bonuses
might be a good time to purchase. It's not as if they're selling any at
the moment anyway.
--
Dane Buson - n0n6...@unixbigots.org
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other
invention in human history, with the possible exception of
handguns and tequila." - Mitch Radcliffe
Zoot Katz
wrote, in part:
>Speaking of expensive bike parts, I
>got buy-in on the concept of electric assist for the Extracycle from the
>spouse...well, until I told her the pricetag for the StokeMonkey. [1]
>
>It was the experience of watching me pedal us home from Madrona beach
>(all four of us on one bike) that got the conversation started. It
>wasn't really that bad (slow on the uphill part of course), but it would
>have been nicer if it was cooler.
>
>[1] Though I'm thinking next spring, when my work hands out bonuses
>might be a good time to purchase. It's not as if they're selling any at
>the moment anyway.
This weekend saw car-free streets in six different Vancouver
neighbourhoods. I got to test a Stokemonkey as well as a few other
buzz bike conversions. The tadpole cargo trike with two front hub
motors was surprisingly agile when loaded. Unloaded the handling
wasn't so nice but not as tricky as the sociable tandem ridden solo.
There's now a Crystalyte 5304 rear hub motor with my name on it while
Justin awaits a supply of controllers to match it. The new shipment
of batteries is in town but still undergoing their quality control
testing. My Xtracycle should be rolling on the dark side by mid July
or early August.
Dane Buson
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:16:57 -0700, Dane Buson <da...@unseen.edu>
> wrote, in part:
>
>>might be a good time to purchase. It's not as if they're selling any at
>>the moment anyway.
>
> This weekend saw car-free streets in six different Vancouver
> neighbourhoods. I got to test a Stokemonkey as well as a few other
> buzz bike conversions. The tadpole cargo trike with two front hub
> motors was surprisingly agile when loaded. Unloaded the handling
> wasn't so nice but not as tricky as the sociable tandem ridden solo.
I never even though about trying to ride one of those solo. It
sounds...interesting.
> There's now a Crystalyte 5304 rear hub motor with my name on it while
> Justin awaits a supply of controllers to match it. The new shipment
> of batteries is in town but still undergoing their quality control
> testing. My Xtracycle should be rolling on the dark side by mid July
> or early August.
>
> http://ebikes.ca/store/
Nifty. I still like the StokeMonkey a little better, mainly I suppose
because I'm attached to my current wheelset. Speaking of which, I can't
find any US suppliers of the Gusset Jury hub. I wanted to build up
another wheel with that and I'm not having any luck. I'll probably have
to concede defeat and get a 48h Spin Doctor hub instead.
--
Dane Buson - n0n6...@unixbigots.org
"Are you sure you're not an encyclopedia salesman?"
"No, Ma'am. Just a burglar, come to ransack the flat."
-- Monty Python
Chalo
>
> Speaking of which, I can't
> find any US suppliers of the Gusset Jury hub. I wanted to build up
> another wheel with that and I'm not having any luck. I'll probably have
> to concede defeat and get a 48h Spin Doctor hub instead.
A Woodman Bill Extreme will do the same job as the Gusset hub, if it
fits the project budget.
I had the misfortune to crunch up the cassette body of a 48h DiaTech
tandem disc hub, just as DiaTech USA was no longer answering its
calls. It's gone now, with no forwarding address. Rats!
Chalo
Dane Buson
> Dane Buson wrote:
>>
>> Speaking of which, I can't
>> find any US suppliers of the Gusset Jury hub. I wanted to build up
>> another wheel with that and I'm not having any luck. I'll probably have
>> to concede defeat and get a 48h Spin Doctor hub instead.
>
> A Woodman Bill Extreme will do the same job as the Gusset hub, if it
> fits the project budget.
Well it might, but the only place I see one (Unreal Cycles) only stocks
the 36h version. I found a place that has the Spin Doctor for $58, so I
think I'll just pick that up. I already have a rim for it, I just need
to pick up some spokes.
> I had the misfortune to crunch up the cassette body of a 48h DiaTech
> tandem disc hub, just as DiaTech USA was no longer answering its
> calls. It's gone now, with no forwarding address. Rats!
Ugh. I was going to buy those, but the availability was going south
about the same time I was looking.
--
Dane Buson - n0n6...@unixbigots.org
"Middle age: when the broad mind and the narrow waist trade places."
- the black rose from r.b.misc
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > A Woodman Bill Extreme will do the same job as the Gusset hub, if it
> > fits the project budget.
>
> Well it might, but the only place I see one (Unreal Cycles) only stocks
> the 36h version.
Yeah, looking at the Woodman site, it appears that they only offer 32h
and 36h. That's weird. But it's not too surprising, considering that
rim manufacturers aren't even making their strongest rims in 48h
anymore.
Chalo