Helmet Bill in Colorado to be Signed by Governor Recuperating from Injuries in a Bicycle Crash
SMS
"...instead of issuing a citation with a fine, officers would hand out
educational cards about why helmet safety is important and with
information about where to obtain a helmet for a minimal price or for free."
This is a great idea. The big problem is that many people simply are
unaware about why helmets are important, and how much protection the
provide. Once they learn the facts they are likely to wear a helmet, and
educating them, rather than fining them, is a better approach.
Bill Sornson
Here we go...
Paul O
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
SMS
<snip>
> The FACT is that there has never been anywhere in the world where an
> increase in helmet use has been shown to have any effect other than to
> discourage cycling.
You've been brainwashed by the AHZs. You need to start reading up on the
facts.
Jobst Brandt
How about citing some links that show what benefits were discovered in
scientific testing? I think that would be more effective than
religious criticism of people who have a different perspective than
you.
http://www.amazon.com/Giro-Monza-Bike-Helmet/dp/B000BNY5P2
In all a holey device with air channels ans shapely appearance.
You might explain what part of this paper-light helmet has which
beneficial effect. What does the wafer thin Styrofoam do, or the skin
of colorful plastic. It might also be the weight saved by spending
$70.
Jobst Brandt
SMS
> How about citing some links that show what benefits were discovered in
> scientific testing? I think that would be more effective than
> religious criticism of people who have a different perspective than
> you.
It's not a matter of opinion or perspective, it's a matter of
statistical facts versus religion.
I don't want to start another helmet war. You can do your own research
if you're unfamiliar with the research. I suggest you start by Googling
"Macpherson A, Spinks A".
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I don't want to start another helmet war.
Bullshit.
The only kernel of truth in that statement is that you hope to execute
only the equivalent of a drive-by shooting. You hope others will
continue the war.
And when someone posts citations or data you can't rebut, you'll slink
off, yelling over your shoulder "But all the data shows..."
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I chased down the reference and
hardly found a slam dunk argument. The "statistical facts" seem pretty
squishy. I don't care much one way or the other, but if anything
concrete does show up, be sure to let us know.
Bill Sornson
Who buys their bike gear from Amazon?!? LOL (Plus, it's a size S.)
I don't think I've ever spent more than $40 for a helmet; and the one that
saved my bacon (note: not LIFE) was under 20 bucks from Performance (coupon
deal on top of sale price).
Of course, I had to spend /another/ $20 when the first one's foam core
SHATTERED IN PIECES when I crashed the very first day I wore it. Best value
for my money ever. (YMMV.)
Bill "if your skull bounces off a curb edge, do you want it protected yes or
no?" S.
Frank Krygowski
>
> ... SHATTERED IN PIECES when I crashed the very first day I wore it. Best value
> for my money ever. (YMMV.)
And if it were even bigger and more fragile, it would shatter in
pieces more frequently. So by your standards, the most breakable
helmet would be the best value for the money.
I suggest one about two feet in diameter, made of eggshells. You'll
be ecstatic over it's "value." It may save your life just trying to
fit it through a narrow doorway!
> "if your skull bounces off a curb edge, do you want it protected yes or no?"
It's ridiculous to assume that's likely to happen. It's like asking
"If a meteorite strikes you while riding your bike, would you want to
be protected or no?"
Even Bill "BS" Sornson has probably never hit his head on a curb edge,
helmeted or not.
- Frank Krygowski
Paul O
I have taken a number of spills over the years - four of those falls
were painful and resulted in injuries (to some minor degree). But, never
once have I been hit by a meteorite.
In fact, I can't seem to recall any of my riding buddies ever mentioning
that they have been hit by meteorites. However, all of my riding buddies
can you tell stories about their various falls, collisions, or close calls.
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote, On 3/6/2010 1:19 AM:
>
>
>
>
> >> "if your skull bounces off a curb edge, do you want it protected yes or no?"
>
> > It's ridiculous to assume that's likely to happen. It's like asking
> > "If a meteorite strikes you while riding your bike, would you want to
> > be protected or no?"
>
> > Even Bill "BS" Sornson has probably never hit his head on a curb edge,
> > helmeted or not.
>
> were painful and resulted in injuries (to some minor degree). But, never
> once have I been hit by a meteorite.
>
> In fact, I can't seem to recall any of my riding buddies ever mentioning
> that they have been hit by meteorites. However, all of my riding buddies
> can you tell stories about their various falls, collisions, or close calls.
So let's return to reality.
Close calls are not crashes. They may act as lessons that point out
your mistakes, but that's it. There are many more close calls of
pedestrians walking than there are of bicyclists cycling, yet
pedestrian close calls don't generate calls for protective equipment.
Falls and collisions while bicycling are concerns, of course. But
contrary to the hype, they rarely cause serious head injury. In fact,
they cause it less frequently (per mile or per hour) for cyclists than
for pedestrians. For just one example, the Phillips report on brain
injury in Ireland showed bicyclists in their sample had a far lower
proportion of moderate or serious head injuries than either
pedestrians, motorcyclists or motorists. Bicyclists' head injuries
were most often mild. See page 43 of
http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf
Other data shows the same thing in other ways. John Pucher's papers
call for separate bike tracks everywhere in America because (he
claims) bicycling is so dangerous. But he inadvertently includes data
showing it's five times safer than walking. How safe do we have to
be?
And to return to Sornson's fantasy: How many or _your_ riding buddies
have fallen and hit their head on a sharp curb edge? That's the kind
of "brains on the sidewalk" fear mongering that's used to scare people
into helmets. But it's not a real life occurrence - at least, no more
for bicyclists than for other road users.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
- Frank Krygowski
landotter
> Once they learn the facts they are likely to wear a helmet, and
> educating them, rather than fining them, is a better approach.
By facts, surely you're referring to FUD and propaganda. What next,
will you hand out cards in ERs touting the miraculous benefit of
homeopathy and alignment of chi with acupuncture?
I think I'll file your opinion here among the other hilarities you
promote--like the clear superiority of steel frames for which no
evidence is necessary!
Pbbbbbbbbbt!
Jobst Brandt
attending schools and preschools are protected against falls, be they
from swings, jungle gyms, teeter totters, tricycles or tripping over
storybooks. Our precious offspring must be made safe and we must
support the Styrofoam industry.
Jobst Brandt
Jym Dyer
> I'm looking forward to a general helmet law so that all
> children attending schools and preschools are protected
> against falls, be they from swings, jungle gyms, teeter
> totters, tricycles or tripping over storybooks.
=v= Hey, those pop-up books can be tricky. Better put on
some elbow pads and full-fingered gloves as well.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: If there was a pop-up edition of _The_Bicycle_Wheel_
I would totally buy one.
Cully J
Don't forget about papercuts gotten from engrossing library books!
They should issue book-reading gloves to all school children!
Cullen
AMuzi
>> I'm looking forward to a general helmet law so that all children
>> attending schools and preschools are protected against falls, be they
>> from swings, jungle gyms, teeter totters, tricycles or tripping over
>> storybooks. Our precious offspring must be made safe and we must
>> support the Styrofoam industry.
Cully J wrote:
> Don't forget about papercuts gotten from engrossing library books!
> They should issue book-reading gloves to all school children!
Chilling scary word, "safety":
http://www.piattorneyblog.com/
only worse phrase is "think of the children".
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
D_Fru...@ndersnat.ch
<SNIP>
> Falls and collisions while bicycling are concerns, of course. But
> contrary to the hype, they rarely cause serious head injury. In fact,
> And to return to Sornson's fantasy: How many or _your_ riding buddies
> have fallen and hit their head on a sharp curb edge? That's the kind
> of "brains on the sidewalk" fear mongering that's used to scare people
> into helmets. But it's not a real life occurrence - at least, no more
> for bicyclists than for other road users.
> Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
I'm loathe to join in to a h*lmet thread, but I feel like maybe I
should add just one comment as sort of an amicus curiae. Unlike most, I
can comment on the strength of personal experience.
I have to admit that I have never fallen and hit my head on a curb
edge. However, I do remember a guy who got right-hooked in Wisconsin a
few years ago. He went over his handlebars and ended up with his head
under the wheels of the UPS truck that 'hooked him. He was wearing a
helmet, and he walked away from the wreck. Incidentally, he was a grad
student, studying arcane thing like biomechanics.
As I said, though, *I* have never hit a curb edge. I did whack a
nice, smooth road with my noggin a little more than a year ago, just in
case anyone would like to know what it's really like. I was riding at
the breakneck speed of about 15 mph when a dog ran out in front of me.
I broke my pinkie finger, arm, femur, and some ribs. Suffered soft
tissue damage to my shoulder that has yet to stop bothering me, and a
year and a half after the accident I can still show you some of the road
rash if you want to see it.
I also suffered a mild concussion and a small subdural hematoma. My
head injury was considerably milder than some of the others because I
was wearing a you-know-what.
Anyone who would like to see some lovely pictures of the brain
bucket that kept me from becoming a vegetable, just send me an e-mail.
My real addy is below.
Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Real e-mail: moon...@xmissioqn.com, minus the letters w/ tails.|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan O
Helmets must absolutely *not* be worn on any sort of above ground
playground equipment that the straps might become caught on.
(The teeter-totters already are not included in new installations,
anyway.)
landotter
Paper cut hysteria is being fomented by the PDF lobby.
RobertH
Library books were banned a long time ago.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I'm loathe to join in to a h*lmet thread, but I feel like maybe I
> should add just one comment as sort of an amicus curiae. Unlike most, I
> can comment on the strength of personal experience.
> I have to admit that I have never fallen and hit my head on a curb
> edge. However, I do remember a guy who got right-hooked in Wisconsin a
> few years ago. He went over his handlebars and ended up with his head
> under the wheels of the UPS truck that 'hooked him. He was wearing a
> helmet, and he walked away from the wreck.
A similar report (maybe the same one) was on the news, including some
television network news.
So are we to believe that a one-pound helmet made of styrofoam
supported the full weight of the truck and prevented it from crushing
his skull? That's what the news reports seemed to imply. Is that
really realistic?
I just had my car up on ramps in my driveway. They are heavy steel.
Why don't they just make them out of styrofoam? So much easier to
handle!
> As I said, though, *I* have never hit a curb edge. I did whack a
> nice, smooth road with my noggin a little more than a year ago, just in
> case anyone would like to know what it's really like. I was riding at
> the breakneck speed of about 15 mph when a dog ran out in front of me.
> I broke my pinkie finger, arm, femur, and some ribs. Suffered soft
> tissue damage to my shoulder that has yet to stop bothering me, and a
> year and a half after the accident I can still show you some of the road
> rash if you want to see it.
> I also suffered a mild concussion and a small subdural hematoma. My
> head injury was considerably milder than some of the others because I
> was wearing a you-know-what.
Yes, and my wife has a friend who ended up in the ER with similar
injuries from taking a lunchtime walk. No car was involved - she was
just walking the sidewalk with her friends, tripped over her own feet
and landed face first on concrete. Nobody suggested she should have
worn a helmet.
More realistically, I've several times told the story of a near
fatality I witnessed in Pittsburgh, where a guy zoomed directly into
the path of a car, got T-boned, destroyed the windshield with his
head, flew higher than the car's roof, and landed on his head on the
street. I was sure he was killed, but his only injury turned out to
be a scratch behind one ear.
His helmet didn't save him, because he had none on. And nobody
claimed he should have worn one, because he was a pedestrian.
So let's stay away from anecdotes and look at data. Check out "Making
Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe" by
John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra. They find that US pedestrians suffer
362 fatalities per billion kilometers walked, while US cyclists suffer
only 109 fatalities per billion kilometers cycled.
If you prefer, you can apply an average walking speed of (say) 5 kph
and a bicycling speed of - well, whatever seems reasonable to you -
and compute the relative risk per hour.
So who should wear helmets?
- Frank Krygowski
Tad McClellan
At 451 degrees.
Oh. You said "banned", not "burned".
<roseanne roseannadanna>
Nevermind.
</roseanne roseannadanna>
--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
D_Fru...@ndersnat.ch
> So who should wear helmets?
As I said, I'm loathe to get into a debate about them. My offer to
send you pictures of mine stands, though.
Bill
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So who should wear helmets?
>
> As I said, I'm loathe to get into a debate about them. My offer to
> send you pictures of mine stands, though.
>
It's not necessary, Bill. We know how fragile they are, and how their
very fragility is used as a sales tool.
- Frank Krygowski
D_Fru...@ndersnat.ch
So, are you saying that I would have been better off in that crash
had I NOT been wearing a helmet? I'm getting the very distinct
impression that a physicist you ain't.
Bill
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 3:15 am, D_Frumiu...@ndersnat.ch wrote:
> > > Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > So who should wear helmets?
>
> > > As I said, I'm loathe to get into a debate about them. My offer to
> > > send you pictures of mine stands, though.
>
> > It's not necessary, Bill. We know how fragile they are, and how their
> > very fragility is used as a sales tool.
>
> So, are you saying that I would have been better off in that crash
> had I NOT been wearing a helmet? I'm getting the very distinct
> impression that a physicist you ain't.
Bill, I know that helmets get broken when bare heads would not be
touched. I'm positive that the number of "My broken helmet saved my
life" stories exceed the number of bike fatalities that ever
occurred. I've witnessed crashes in which people were unhurt, but in
which their helmets would have been smashed IF they had worn them, and
I experienced one myself. I know that helmet use has soared in the
past 15 years, yet serious head injuries per cyclist have not
declined. I know that bike helmets are certified according to
standards that are incredibly unrealistic, as shown by physics. All
in all, it's obvious that these things are very highly overrated, and
the need for them is very highly exaggerated.
It's always possible that you're the rare exception to the documented
trends. After all, it really is true that at least one World War II
bullet to the heart was stopped by a Zippo lighter. But that doesn't
mean a broken Zippo proves a life was saved.
You're obviously convinced that the smack you felt through the fragile
styrofoam would have done you in. Many clients of spiritual healers
are just as convinced that the blow they receive drives out their
demons. But neither is physics, neither is proof. You're free to
believe your own story, but you should understand the many reasons
that others may not.
- Frank Krygowski
mischastar
In my personal opinion I think that my head is worth a lot more than the
cost of a helmet. I have crashed whilst wearing a helmet and although my
helmet brooke, my head was still completely intact which i thought was
brilliant. I would much rather be seen wearing a helmet than a huge
bandage round my head or even a big scar on my head because I didn't
want to wear one!
--
mischastar
Bill Sornson
Like all things politcal, making perfect sense like that will draw ire and
ridicule from the elite minority threatened by your opinion.
Keep it up.
BS (not)
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> Like all things politcal, making perfect sense like that will draw ire and
> ridicule from the elite minority threatened by your opinion.
It isn't the question of whether or not the things work that rouses
emotions -- it's trying to jam hard hats onto unwilling people that
creates soreheads.
If we had stuck to trying to persuade people that wearing a helmet is
a sensible precaution, I wouldn't see so many people who think they
are wearing helmets, but have rendered them non-functional by not
fastening the chin straps, wearing them tilted, buying them way too
loose, etc.
And, personal vendetta here, if it weren't for the helmet-law freaks,
I might be able to buy a new helmet. The one I'm wearing stinks,
those in the store are worse.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Bill Sornson
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're new to these Usenet
flame fests -- although the fact that you deleted the personal story that
prompted my comment above suggests an agenda on your part.
A) Conflating the issue of helmet efficacy with Mandatory Use Regulations is
disingenuous at best. The person simply reported that they'd been in a
crash that broke his or her lid but left the head un-injured, and so was
convinced of helmets' effectiveness.
B) Your second point makes absolutely no sense. I see a wide variety of
helmets in stores, ranging from as little as $15 to over $200 (which I'd
never pay -- mine tend to cost $20-40). "Helmet-law freaks" have no bearing
on that availability whatsoever.
BS (out)
SMS
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:40:09 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Like all things politcal, making perfect sense like that will draw ire and
>> ridicule from the elite minority threatened by your opinion.
>
> It isn't the question of whether or not the things work that rouses
> emotions -- it's trying to jam hard hats onto unwilling people that
> creates soreheads.
I don't think there's a single adult helmet law in the United States.
The helmet laws for children are more of a tool for parents to use to
get their kids (who have not yet acquired the knowledge and education of
adults) to wear helmets. If you live in an area where it's mostly
college educated, relatively well-off parents, who understand the
benefits of bicycle helmets and would make their children use them (law
or not), it's easy to forget that it's not like that everywhere. And
yes, helmets are only one component of bicycle safety; teaching safe
riding procedures would be another worthwhile endeavor, but it's not
either-or.
OTOH, adult helmet laws are the result of do-gooders with the attitude
of "let's pass more laws to make everything safe for everyone." They
believe that they should be able to tell everyone else, especially poor
people, how to live their lives.
"http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/10/62-knowing-whats-best-for-poor-people/"
Their mistake is that coercing someone to do something produces a
backlash, logical or not, while educating them as to why they should
voluntarily do something is usually (marginally) more successful.
In countries with universal health care there's also the matter of the
cost of treating the additional injuries incurred by helmet-less riders.
This makes some sense, but of course there are those that will lobby
against helmet laws with the logic that if the government is going to
require that adults wear bicycling helmets, why aren't they also
requiring that they stop eating fatty foods and eat more fruits and
vegetables. In countries with adult helmet laws the reduction in head
injury rates, while fairly large in percentage terms, is very small in
absolute numbers (again, those against helmets will claim, without
evidence, that the reduction in head injury rates is the result of less
people cycling).
Some states in the U.S. have relaxed their motorcycle helmet laws so if
the rider wants to ride without a helmet they have to provide proof of
health insurance at a certain level so the state doesn't end up picking
up the tab if they're injured. If any adult helmet laws are passed in
the U.S. there should be similar opt-out provisions if you can prove
that you have health insurance. But I don't think there is any danger of
adult helmet laws in the U.S.. The only city that was discussing one was
Austin, and that seems to have gone nowhere.
Peter Rathmann
...
> In countries with adult helmet laws the reduction in head
> injury rates, while fairly large in percentage terms, is very small in
> absolute numbers (again, those against helmets will claim, without
> evidence, that the reduction in head injury rates is the result of less
> people cycling).
in absolute numbers, the rate of fatalities and hospitalizations
actually went up when cycling participation was taken into account.
And the evidence was in the form of controlled counts of cyclists
taken before and after the imposition of the helmet laws.
> ... But I don't think there is any danger of
> adult helmet laws in the U.S.. The only city that was discussing one was
> Austin, and that seems to have gone nowhere.
Check http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm for a list of about 60 cities
in the US that have bicycle helmet laws for adults. In Texas, Austin
is not one of them, but Dallas is. Washington State has a number of
sizable cities with such laws, including Seattle, Spokane, and
Vancouver. A few of these laws are not enforceable, such as the one
nearest to you in El Cerrito, CA since there it conflicts with
provisions of the CVC. But most are valid and can be enforced by the
police if they choose to do so.
SMS
> Phil has already pointed out that although there were small reductions
> in absolute numbers, the rate of fatalities and hospitalizations
> actually went up when cycling participation was taken into account.
> And the evidence was in the form of controlled counts of cyclists
> taken before and after the imposition of the helmet laws.
LOL, maybe he "pointed it out" but the only problem is that all the
statistics prove the exact opposite. He's got an agenda, and he'll make
up whatever statements it takes to support it. BTW, there was no
accurate count of before and after cyclists. Interesting that the
requirement for statistically sound surveys only applies when it fits
his agenda!
> Check http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm for a list of about 60 cities
> in the US that have bicycle helmet laws for adults.
I stand corrected. Didn't realize there were so many nanny-cities.
Peter Rathmann
> Peter Rathmann wrote:
> > Phil has already pointed out that although there were small reductions
> > in absolute numbers, the rate of fatalities and hospitalizations
> > actually went up when cycling participation was taken into account.
> > And the evidence was in the form of controlled counts of cyclists
> > taken before and after the imposition of the helmet laws.
>
> LOL, maybe he "pointed it out" but the only problem is that all the
> statistics prove the exact opposite. He's got an agenda, and he'll make
> up whatever statements it takes to support it. BTW, there was no
> accurate count of before and after cyclists. Interesting that the
> requirement for statistically sound surveys only applies when it fits
> his agenda!
Just about any sampling population study can be questioned as to its
statistical soundness.
But there certainly is evidence for a decline in cycling following
imposition of MHLs. One example of a decline in cycling numbers is
provided in the Mar. '05 issue of Health Promotion Journal of Aus.:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/hpja_2005_1_robinson.pdf
which cites several places where such declines were noted, incl.
Melbourne where counts were taken at 64 places at the same time of
year and day in the year before the MHL and the two years following
it. Declines were about 30%.
SMS
> which cites several places where such declines were noted, incl.
> Melbourne where counts were taken at 64 places at the same time of
> year and day in the year before the MHL and the two years following
> it. Declines were about 30%.
Is that in total km of cycling for the whole population or in raw
numbers of cyclists? What was the weather on each of the sampling days?
Was their any advance publicity that they'd be counting on that specific
day?
Peter Rathmann
If you're really interested in the details I suggest you research it
yourself rather than ask me for second-hand information. The article
does indicate that weather conditions were similar. Such count
studies are not publicized in advance since that would impact the
results. They did have a problem at one of the counting sites one
year due to a large bike rally that happened to go by - so data from
that site couldn't be used.
Frank Krygowski
>
> I don't think there's a single adult helmet law in the United States.
Wrong, as usual. There are at least 50 jurisdictions that have all-
ages bicycle helmet laws in the U.S.
> In countries with universal health care there's also the matter of the
> cost of treating the additional injuries incurred by helmet-less riders.
> This makes some sense, but of course there are those that will lobby
> against helmet laws with the logic that if the government is going to
> require that adults wear bicycling helmets, why aren't they also
> requiring that they stop eating fatty foods and eat more fruits and
> vegetables.
More to the point: If the government wants to reduce the cost of
treating brain injuries, why start with an activity that causes so few
of them?
From http://mighkwilson.com/2009/12/laws-based-on-lies/
"According to the Florida Department of Health, there were 622
traumatic brain injuries (TBI) among bicyclists in Florida in 2005.
By comparison, during the same period, 14,696 automobile and truck
passengers, 1,643 motorcyclists, and 1,189 pedestrians suffered
traumatic brain injuries. Cyclists were only 3% of all traffic-
related TBIs."
And that's in the state that routinely leads the country in serous
bike injuries. In most states, bike TBI is less than 2% of the
total. Nationally, bike TBI fatalities are less than 1% of total TBI
fatalities.
So the idea that cycling is a significant source of TBI is absolutely
false. If you want to save medical costs, put helmets on the people
that get most of the TBI. Shouldn't that be obvious?
> ... But I don't think there is any danger of
> adult helmet laws in the U.S..
Again, there are over 50 jurisdictions that have them so far.
Mr. Scharf really should start learning things before he posts about
them.
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
> If you're really interested in the details I suggest you research it
> yourself rather than ask me for second-hand information. The article
> does indicate that weather conditions were similar. Such count
> studies are not publicized in advance since that would impact the
> results. They did have a problem at one of the counting sites one
> year due to a large bike rally that happened to go by - so data from
> that site couldn't be used.
Yeah, you don't want to count anyone that might cause your conclusion to
be different than the conclusion that you want!
Frank Krygowski
Scharf's understanding of data collection is abysmal.
If you wanted to examine how well central heating controlled a room's
temperature, would you include the temperature data from the day the
building caught fire?
- Frank Krygowski
Patrick Lamb
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>>In countries with universal health care there's also the matter of the
>>cost of treating the additional injuries incurred by helmet-less riders.
>
>The gain ratio has been established as 20:1 in favour of encouraging
>people to cycle, and helmets achieve the opposite.
>It's even been calculated that every pound spent on cycling promotion
>in the UK results in a saving of three pounds to the National Health
>Service.
I'd be interested in a citation for this, if you have one. My best
guess, playing (unscientifically) with lies, damned lies, and
statistics, was about 6:1 in favor of bicycles for death rates.
Pat
Peter Rathmann
Hillman, Cycling: Towards Health and Safety, BMA, Oxford University
Press, 1992.
He looked at the number of person-years lost due to deaths from
cycling accidents vs. the number of person-years gained due to the
health benefits of cycling and came up with a ratio of about 20:1 in
favor of cycling. Don't have a cite for the cost savings by the NHS.
smharding
> Bill "if your skull bounces off a curb edge, do you want it protected yes or
> no?" S.
Yes, if I know my head is going for a meeting with a
brick wall, I'd want it protected as much as possible.
This would be true if that meeting came about via
bicycle, motor vehicle, tripping on a sidewalk crack.
I'd also want to be wearing flame retardant clothing
if my truck burst into flame from some sort of accident.
A parachute (a well documented life saver) might be a
good idea when flying, commercial or private.
The real question is whether the activity is dangerous
enough to warrant using such protections on a day to
day level, "just in case".
My understanding is that a lot of activities we regard
as "safe" are in fact quite a bit more deadly than we
are willing to believe (motor vehicle operation for
example).
I just don't consider bicycling dangerous enough to
consider helmet use improving my odds of survival doing
it. A helmet probably does improve one's survival odds
*if* something happens; just not enough to be bothered
with as far as I'm concerned.
Yet just about every organized ride where I don't wear a
helmet (to test if the organizers *really* mean mandatory
use), I have fellow cyclists ride up to me asking me why
I don't "value my head".
SMH
smharding
> In fact, I can't seem to recall any of my riding buddies ever mentioning
> that they have been hit by meteorites. However, all of my riding buddies
> can you tell stories about their various falls, collisions, or close calls.
>
And they can tell you these experiences because they
wore helmets and survived the ordeals?
I grew up in the 50s and 60's when a *lot* of kids
rode bicycles everywhere. School, movies, friends
houses, hangouts.
Just about *everyone* crashed at some point or another.
A few fairly seriously.
However none of my peers that I can recall, ever died
from bicycle accidents. They died from drowning, one
from stepping on a rusty nail, a few from disease of
one sort or another, and most from car accidents.
Doesn't mean no one at that time ever died while on a
bicycle, but just wasn't common to my knowledge.
Now days, it seems the image portrayed is that you are
defying death to bike without a helmet, with some even
arguing you are being socially irresponsible for not
doing so.
It's a bike! I'll most likely skin my knee or leg or
at worst break a leg or collarbone. It really isn't
death defying!
SMH
Bill Sornson
So that's a yes then.
Smart choice.
BS
Stephen Harding
> So that's a yes then.
>
> Smart choice.
How many hours a day is your helmet on your head?
I guess it would be a dumb choice if you didn't have your
helmet on when you tripped over the rug in your house some
evening heading for the fridge for a glass of milk and
ended up in the emergency room.
SMH
Bill Sornson
What are you talking about?
Dan O
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > Bill "if your skull bounces off a curb edge, do you want it protected yes or
> > no?" S.
>
> Yes, if I know my head is going for a meeting with a
> brick wall, I'd want it protected as much as possible.
>
> This would be true if that meeting came about via
> bicycle, motor vehicle, tripping on a sidewalk crack.
>
> I'd also want to be wearing flame retardant clothing
> if my truck burst into flame from some sort of accident.
> A parachute (a well documented life saver) might be a
> good idea when flying, commercial or private.
If I was offered a parachute when boarding a plane, I think I'd take
it. Possibly the same for the fire suit and truck - depending on
circumstances. If I did either of those things as often as I ride
bike, I might even invest in my own gear.
>
> The real question is whether the activity is dangerous
> enough to warrant using such protections on a day to
> day level, "just in case".
And this question is answered by considering the cost of using said
protection against the potential benefit.
>
> My understanding is that a lot of activities we regard
> as "safe" are in fact quite a bit more deadly than we
> are willing to believe (motor vehicle operation for
> example).
>
> I just don't consider bicycling dangerous enough to
> consider helmet use improving my odds of survival doing
> it. A helmet probably does improve one's survival odds
> *if* something happens; just not enough to be bothered
> with as far as I'm concerned.
Then in your estimation, the cost ("bother") exceeds the benefit.
That's fine. Sometimes, in some circumstances, I make the same
decision; but usually it goes the other way for me.
>
> Yet just about every organized ride where I don't wear a
> helmet (to test if the organizers *really* mean mandatory
> use), I have fellow cyclists ride up to me asking me why
> I don't "value my head".
>
They're being idiots. You've weighed the costs vs. benefits, and made
your own decision.
Frank Krygowski
> On Mar 13, 1:24 pm, smharding <smhard...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> > The real question is whether the activity is dangerous
> > enough to warrant using such protections on a day to
> > day level, "just in case".
>
> And this question is answered by considering the cost of using said
> protection against the potential benefit.
The problem now is with people's judgment about those variables.
People have now been led to believe that ordinary bike riding is
dangerous enough that they need all sorts of special protection - even
though it's far safer than being a pedestrian. And people have been
led to believe that the benefit of helmets is tremendous (85%!!!!!)
even though wide use of helmets hasn't affected head injury rates at
all.
And of course, people have been led to believe that every time they
put a dent in some soft styrofoam, it's saved their life, or brain, or
skull, or handsome looks.
I'll admit, the sales job has been brilliant. P.T. Barnum wasn't the
only one who knew a thing or two about suckers and selling.
- Frank Krygowski
Patrick Lamb
Much appreciated.
Pat
Patrick Lamb
wrote:
>On Mar 13, 1:24 pm, smharding <smhard...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'd also want to be wearing flame retardant clothing
>> if my truck burst into flame from some sort of accident.
>> A parachute (a well documented life saver) might be a
>> good idea when flying, commercial or private.
>
>If I was offered a parachute when boarding a plane, I think I'd take
>it. Possibly the same for the fire suit and truck - depending on
>circumstances. If I did either of those things as often as I ride
>bike, I might even invest in my own gear.
If I'm offered a parachute the next time I'm boarding a plane, I think
I'll turn around and leave the airport.
Seriously, the odds of injury or death from flying a commercial plane
are some of the lowest I know. If someone thinks the risk is high
enough for a particular flight that they need to offer me a parachute,
I'd suspect something was wrong with the plane or the weather, and I'd
rather not fly that day.
Pat
It's Chris
- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net