What about cyclists like us?
Andre Jute
travelling at a speed most of us will never achieve, on roads only
Jobst and Lou have ever seen?
There is plenty of data about cyclists just like us to talk about:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
That looks to me like helmets saved 33 lives of cyclists like us
riding at speeds like ours on urban streets of a type familiar to most
of us.
Andre Jute
Eventually the message will register
On Sep 1, 5:58 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> considered Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:52:21
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
> >On Aug 31, 10:14 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 31, 6:46 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I googled "Casartelli" looking for examples of the "nonsense claims"
> >> > you mention. At Wikipedia I found:
>
> >> > "Many have claimed if Casartelli had been wearing a modern bicycle
> >> > helmet his life might have been saved."
>
> >> Which is nonsense. The collision was at a speed no bike helmet could
> >> handle. Surely you don't think these things are good for 45mph into
> >> solid concrete, do you??
>
> >My dictionary says the word "might" is "used to indicate a possibility
> >or probability that is weaker than may: We might discover a pot of
> >gold at the end of the rainbow"
>
> >What do you mean "handle", anyway? All we know is that hitting his
> >head without a helmet killed him. It is entirely possible that a
> >helmet could have attenuated and/or deflected and/or otherwise altered
> >the forces enough to change the outcome. A longshot? Probably -
> >*almost* certainly - but still possible.
>
> Only if you seriously believe that helmets have some kind of magic
> fairy dust used in their manufacture.
>
>
>
> >> > ... and:
>
> >> > "Disteldorf added that had Casartelli been wearing a hard helmet 'some
> >> > injuries could have been avoided'."
>
> >> "Some injuries"? I don't doubt the truth of that, but I very much
> >> doubt its practicality. No matter what minor injuries it may have
> >> prevented, it would certainly not prevent his death.
>
> >"Minor injuries"? Where did you get that?
>
> The only injuries that a cycle helmet could have prevented or
> mitigated in that kind of incident would be the minor ones, not the
> ones which killed him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Certainly"? Others are saying "might" and could". You are the only
> >one saying "would".
>
> >> > The next hit,http://www.bhsi.org/timesart.htm, offered:
>
> >> > "Fabio Casartelli may not have died if he had been wearing a helmet."
>
> >> > I know this kind of stuff makes *you* see red, but "nonsense"? I'm
> >> > not finding anyone saying "a certified-for-14-mph helmet would have
> >> > saved him".
>
> >> > Can you please cite some of the "nonsense claims" to which you refer?
>
> >> Dan, there's no need for me to cite those nonsense claims. You've
> >> just done that.
>
> >You said, "There were - and still are - claims that a certified-for-14-
> >mph helmet would have saved him."
>
> >Cite, please, or retract.
>
> What else would a "modern bicycle helmet" be but one certified to
> modern standards?
>
> >> Because of your faith, you don't recognize the nonsense - but it's
> >> still nonsense. In a direct hit between a concrete pillar and a
> >> person's head at over 45 mph, a certified-for-14-mph helmet is simply
> >> not going to make a difference! Anybody believing it will is either a
> >> helmet fundamentalist, or a dishonest helmet promoter. Or both.
>
> >Talk about a fundamentalist.
>
> There's nothing wrong with a desire for accuracy.
> I'm far more concerned that fantasists seem to wish for everyone else
> to share in their fantasies.
Plano Dude
There is no "us". You don't speak for anyone but yourself, so fuck off.
Uncle Dave
<snip>
>
> > There's nothing wrong with a desire for accuracy.
> > I'm far more concerned that fantasists seem to wish for everyone else
> > to share in their fantasies.
>
>
You failed to quote the really telling statistic from the report -
"Nearly all bicyclist fatalities (92%) occurred as a result of crashes
with motor vehicles". You place yourself in dodgy company. There was
an asshole here in the UK who, failing to watch where he was going,
killed a cyclist and then had the timerity to start a campaign to make
wearing of helmets mandatory. Faced with such stupidity and denial,
it's no wonder that cyclists are less than enamoured when somebody
starts lecturing them about wearing helmets. Helmets aren't the
problem, car drivers are.
UD
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
They have made cars 10 times as safe lately with so many air bags as
if reckless driving wouldn't result in death. For cyclists it does.
Andre Jute
> On Sep 1, 9:29 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
I'm afraid, Uncle Dave, that people will assume the worst of you for
snipping the numbers and the reference. So I give them again for
everyone's benefit.
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
> > > There's nothing wrong with a desire for accuracy.
> > > I'm far more concerned that fantasists seem to wish for everyone else
> > > to share in their fantasies.
Yes, that's why I want to publish honest statistics, because there are
too many malicious clowns who lie about the numbers.
> You failed to quote the really telling statistic from the report -
> "Nearly all bicyclist fatalities (92%) occurred as a result of crashes
> with motor vehicles". You place yourself in dodgy company.
That's always the danger when you make soundbite summaries for the
soundbite minds on the net. The short-brain anti-helmet zealots were
complaining that the report and even my summary were too long for them
to grasp, so I made that crisp summary, which left out the more
obvious, generally agreed statistics, like "Nearly all bicyclist
fatalities (92%) occurred as a result of crashes with motor vehicles."
>There was
> an asshole here in the UK who, failing to watch where he was going,
> killed a cyclist and then had the timerity to start a campaign to make
> wearing of helmets mandatory.
Some people have a goddamn cheek.
>Faced with such stupidity and denial,
> it's no wonder that cyclists are less than enamoured when somebody
> starts lecturing them about wearing helmets.
I hope you aren't talking about me. I made no recommendation for
either helmet wear or against, for either mandatory helmet laws or
against. I'm publishing honest statistics as a social service to
cyclists. I don't appreciative anonymous clowns trying to insinuate
that I have an agenda.
> Helmets aren't the
> problem, car drivers are.
I agree. The culture has to be changed to make the driver responsible
when he hits the cyclist.
Andre Jute
Krygo, he say, "Any old number is good number."
Mike Jacoubowsky
succeeded in doing is getting a whole lot of people here on rbr who actually
*do* wear helmets argue against them, just because. It really has nothing to
do with bicycle racing these days. Unless riders are hiding their dope in
their helmets.
The only valid helmet threads on rbr should be those dealing with style and
their ability to hold sunglasses.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Mr. Slate
> Can we move this off rbr please? It really serves no point here. All
> you've succeeded in doing is getting a whole lot of people here on
> rbr who actually *do* wear helmets argue against them, just because.
> It really has nothing to do with bicycle racing these days. Unless
> riders are hiding their dope in their helmets.
>
> The only valid helmet threads on rbr should be those dealing with
> style and their ability to hold sunglasses.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
You should be asking them to just remove rbr from the crossposting headers.
That would do it.
dave a
Considering the current level of discussion on rbr, I don't see much
difference between the helmet wars and the drug wars. Nothing new to
discuss in either area. Fortunately, it's pretty easy to avoid both.
There is actually some racing going on, but you would hardly know it here.
Brad Anders
> There is no "us". You don't speak for anyone but yourself, so fuck off.
I agree. AJ needs to fuck off. Of course, he won't, but he really
should fuck off.
Brad Anders
Andre Jute
> the fact that bike helmets have
> extremely tiny protective capabilities.
There is now serious evidence to contradict this old shibboleth of the
anti-helmet zealots. From the official New York compilation of eight
years of cyclist fatalities and SERIOUS accidents:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all (97%) of the 225 bicyclists who died were not wearing a
helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in the 333 SERIOUS
non-fatal crashes for which helmet use was noted.
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
It is quite clear from these numbers that:
• Wearing a helmet saves lives.
• Wearing a helmet made the difference between life and death for
almost 10% of the injured cyclists.
• That's 33 cyclists alive who are very likely to have died without a
helmet.
In what sort of a mirrorworld are 33 people alive rather than dead
proof of "the fact that bike helmets have extremely tiny protective
capabilities".
I look forward to your explanation, Krygowski.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
Tim McNamara
<ee7e99d7-ff5f-4662...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Uncle Dave <david...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Helmets aren't the problem, car drivers are.
Sometimes. And sometimes the problem is a loose nut holding on to the
handlebars. We've all seen the idiots riding the wrong way against
traffic, the wrong way down one way streets, blowing through red lights
and stop signs, riding in dark clothing without lights or reflectors at
night, riding with no brakes, etc. The term "contributory negligence"
applies.
--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
Andre Jute
> In article
> <ee7e99d7-ff5f-4662-aaa4-01bc3f5f6...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > Helmets aren't the problem, car drivers are.
>
> Sometimes. And sometimes the problem is a loose nut holding on to the
> handlebars. We've all seen the idiots riding the wrong way against
> traffic, the wrong way down one way streets, blowing through red lights
> and stop signs, riding in dark clothing without lights or reflectors at
> night, riding with no brakes, etc. The term "contributory negligence"
> applies.
>
> --
> That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
Gee. Sometimes I really wonder if we're all on the same side. -- Andre
Jute
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Can we move this off rbr please? It really serves no point here.
Just ask Kurgan to post something political on rbt and cc in his two
friends from aln.cnc; that should keep them busy for a while. Come to
think of it perhaps the same two friends should be placed in that cage
with Jute and Lafferty.