cumpolsory hemet use enforcement statistics

[datakoll]

where ? for Austrailia ? exist online ?

EG

last year Aussie LE fined

21 upper middle class jocks

23 college students

137 aboriginees

243 negroes

4 Italians

2 Finns

1 NORWEGIAN

1,386 Englishmen

wikiarrest ?

[datakoll]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZck

just in

14 Italians

3 Swedes

11 Mongolians

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Cycling-in-Melbourne

As of 2003, Victoria Police were still issuing around 20,000 Bicycle Offence Penalty Notices a year. Since the law, cycling in Melbourne has never been able to recover its previous share of the transport split. In 1985-6, 3.4% of trips in Melbourne were by bicycle, recent 2004 data shows a decline to 2.0%. The experience of Melbourne's cyclists has given added impetus to the efforts of cyclists in Europe and elsewhere to resist, or repeal, such helmet laws. Bicycle helmet A bicycle helmet is designed to provide head protection for cyclists. ...

20,000 fines at $15 is a huge number suggesting public objection to the law as civil disobedience of an Aussie type. UP YOURS BLOKE

ODOR: Victoria auto insurance is a monopoly.

OPINION: Statistic projection for head injury prevention, centering on children, teenagers - is 800,00-1000000 for US, a number probably in the public interest for Prevention IF manadatory helmet use was or is enforceable.

Next question…

[datakoll]

ccccccccccc


89% US (US WHAT ?) support helmet use for children....yours but not mine, off course...eyeyyehahahha be serious 89% !

so 50% riders were helmets, an online stat that breeks of muliple counts of BS as I never see anyone except stage 5 weirdos wearing helmets in Fla which

drum rollllllllll puhlease,,,,ahcount for 30% of fatalities with California.

IF you add 89% with 50% for 1000000 head injuires amung knuck knuck kncuk children then ya gotta statutory case for helmett laws..

if helmet laws were cost enforceable by law enforcement

wiki handles the helmet field fairly and imprssively - bronze - but the enforcement question prob runs deep into esoteric social theory and stats where truth from fictionwould be difficult to disembull.

WHOA ! 4 more Finns ...

[datakoll]

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP


4 CHICAGOANS !

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:49:12 PM UTC-5, datakoll wrote:

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

"In 2009, Western Australia police issued $50 helmet infringements against 2,400 cyclists - 1,913 adults, 446 youths. This was up from 2008 when there were 1,503 adults and 286 youths punished for riding their bikes without helmets. In 2010, police apprehended and issued infringements against 1,873 cyclists and in 2011 they fined 1,066 cyclists. Although this means 7,128 people were persecuted for cycling from 2008 to 2011, it suggests police enforcement of the helmet law continues to be relaxed with WA hospital admission figures remaining comparatively stable since about the year 2000 as an increasing proportion of people risk prosecution by cycling without a helmet.

"The bicycle helmet infringement fine in the state of Victoria in 2012 is $149, having risen from $58 in 2009 when 6,600 cyclists were fined on Victorian roads. This severe punishment for exercising on a bike in Victoria helps explain why the BikeShare hire scheme in Melbourne has been a failure. The helmet fine in NSW is also $146 (2010) and in the Australian Capital Territory it is $67. In Queensland between 2007 and 2009, about 7,500 cyclists were fined each year for not wearing a helmet."

[Dan O]

On Nov 7, 10:07 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:49:12 PM UTC-5, datakoll wrote:
> > where ? for Austrailia ? exist online ?
>
> > EG
>
> > last year Aussie LE fined
>
> > 21 upper middle class jocks
>
> > 23 college students
>
> > 137 aboriginees
>
> > 243 negroes
>
> > 4 Italians
>
> > 2 Finns
>
> > 1 NORWEGIAN
>
> > 1,386 Englishmen
>
> > wikiarrest ?
>
> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html
>

Hmm... scrolling... perusing... what's this?

http://www.citeulike.org/user/mokgand/article/5070214

[James]

On 08/11/12 05:07, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:

> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html
>
> "In 2009, Western Australia police issued $50 helmet infringements
> against 2,400 cyclists - 1,913 adults, 446 youths. This was up from
> 2008 when there were 1,503 adults and 286 youths punished for riding
> their bikes without helmets. In 2010, police apprehended and issued
> infringements against 1,873 cyclists and in 2011 they fined 1,066
> cyclists. Although this means 7,128 people were persecuted for
> cycling from 2008 to 2011, it suggests police enforcement of the
> helmet law continues to be relaxed with WA hospital admission figures
> remaining comparatively stable since about the year 2000 as an
> increasing proportion of people risk prosecution by cycling without a
> helmet.
>
> "The bicycle helmet infringement fine in the state of Victoria in
> 2012 is $149, having risen from $58 in 2009 when 6,600 cyclists were
> fined on Victorian roads. This severe punishment for exercising on a
> bike in Victoria helps explain why the BikeShare hire scheme in
> Melbourne has been a failure. The helmet fine in NSW is also $146
> (2010) and in the Australian Capital Territory it is $67. In
> Queensland between 2007 and 2009, about 7,500 cyclists were fined
> each year for not wearing a helmet."

It is obvious you put too much faith in websites dedicated to anti
helmeteers.

http://bikes.oobrien.com/melbourne/

Despite it being a wet morning, and a little fresh for some, it seems
40% of bikes are in use at the moment - and it's no where near the peak
usage period yet.

--
JS

[frkr...@gmail.com]

40% of how many? How does the total fleet, and the average number of uses per day, compare with those of Dublin, Paris, London...?

Dublin, Ireland hit a million uses within a year. Each "Dublinbike" gets used an average of ten times per day. Paris, France has 16,000 bicycles, and sitting at a sidewalk cafe, we saw one go by every minute or so. London has over 8,000 bikes in use. How's Melbourne by comparison?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_sharing_system has some discussion of systems around the world. It makes Melbourne's sound very sickly.

Or see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPjvZlAl_js especially from 3:55 to about 5:30.

- Frank Krygowski

[James]

Relative use is fairly good. I'd say the program has been relatively
successful. If there were thousands more bikes available than being
used, that would be a failure indeed, but that is not the case. If
there were no bikes available to be used, that too would be a failure.

You must remember that the car culture is well ingrained, also there is
relatively good public transport around Melbourne city with the trams
and trains. While I sit in the evening drinking coffee not more than 20
meters from one of the bike docks, I see people taking and returning
bikes frequently.

As well, the city streets are not very accommodating for bicycles, with
tram tracks and parallel parked cars and plenty of motorised traffic.
The city should be purged of such things to really encourage alternate
modes of transport.

--
JS.

[datakoll]

a ticketing video would be interesting.

On the hole, the scene belongs on a different planet.

what are the ten good reason these riders are not wearing helmets ?

I can't see a rider fined for riding down a country lane maybe arrested are on city streets....reminds of Prohibition

what's ucite Dano ? the place has coooookies, nogo

something on the Golan Heights ?

[James]

On 08/11/12 09:19, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:

I saw plenty of helmets in use. They must be very fearful of major
brain trauma in Dublin.

He claims 400 bikes in Melbourne? Well, it's closer to 900 bikes now,
so I think the stats are a little outdated.

Oh, Nov. 2010. 2 years old data. C'mon.

I just love his 1,000,000 trips and no fatalities, just like what you
would say, Frank.

And he does the pedestrian helmet argument too! He must have been
coached, eh?

--
JS

[datakoll]

relatives ?

[Dan O]

On Nov 7, 12:58 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:

Purely anecdotal impression, I'm going to say, in my neck of the
woods, less than 50% helmet use (I will skip the anecdotal analysis on
demographics and such) - even among children, for whom it's mandatory
by law - and zero enforcement that I know of.

And that's okay, helmets are not the be all end all of bicycle safety,
and I don't think compulsory helmet use is the answer (though it would
undoubtedly save some individuals pain and grief, I believe MHL would
be detrimental overall - though I usually don't like to look at tings
from a public good but individually sanguine POV).

Right outside my workplace is a high speed road with bike lanes on
either side. I personally would not ride these bike lanes. This road
is a major bypass with lots of traffic and lots of fast moving large
trucks, and a curb preventing ready bailout. Sure nearly all traffic
will notice and accommodate bicyclists (though not always very
respectfully), but s**t happens, and with so much traffic it's that
inverse lottery Peter spoke of (not to mention downright unpleasant in
any event).

Yesterday I was standing near this road, when a woman on a bicycle
came along in the bike lane. As I watched her pass,she was overtaken
by a large truck. As the truck passed her she wobbled in the draft.
I have heard a number of reports of bicyclists that (purportedly,
since they're not around anymore to give their version) purportedly
"lost control" and went into the path or under the wheels of a big
truck. This lady did not (quite), but I was watching her ride by, and
she was... wobbly.

Now even I (the mighty Bike Rider :-) wobble in the draft sometimes,
though I almost never feel like it takes me near loss of control.
Anyway, this lady did not appear to be as solid with the bike
handling.

Now, if she'd gone under the wheels of this truck, a helmet probably
wouldn't' make a difference in the outcome (though I - as someone who
has from being on a bike to sliding on my back underneath a moving
truck and out the other side - and many other misadventures - I can
envision scenarios where a good helmet could make all the difference
in the world when something like that happens; but it's a longshot).
If she wobbled and lost it the *other* way, though - bouncing her head
off the curb, or even *more* within the protective capacity of a
helmet - *past* the curb and impacted her head int he unpaved median
between road and sidewalk...

(She was not wearing a helmet, BTW. A lot of the riders I see with no
helmet also have a weighted plastic shopping bag hanging from each
handlebar, which I imagine wreaks serious degradation on control.)

But I still don't believe in MHL., though I think the *child* MHL in
my area - unenforced - works as a strong suggestion to consider
wearing a helmet, which I think is even more effective protection for
children - though by no means the most important consideration.

I don't want all-ages MHL - even unenforced - because I do agree that
it's a detriment to the promotion of bicycling - huge growth in
bicycling being what we *really* need to change our status as valid
road users and improve so many public issues (though I think it is
going too far to vilify the *use* of helmets per individual choice or
e.g. properly informed parental discretion); also don't like MHL
because I *really* like our current *legal* status - unlicensed, with
~full rights to the roads but also more special advantages than
unreasonable restrictions, and (in my neck of the woods) pretty much
left alone by the cops to use our own judgement, and I really enjoy
this freedom and latitude on my bike, and I see all-ages MHL as a foot
in the door to crackdown (plus misdirected emphasis).

As a footnote - a letter I wrote as a teenager (long ago) advocating
motorcycle MHL was published in the AMA ("motorcycle", not "medical")
magazine. My argument was basically that the very sort of rider who
wanted to look cool and tended to be interested in image was less
attentive to other important safety considerations (e.g. situational
awareness), and also often less experienced handling a bike (I lived
in a college town where young dudes would get a crotch rocket as
perhaps their first bike and rip around town paying attention to who
was paying attention to them). As I say, though, I was a teenager,
and we know how that is and views change as we go through life and
observe and think and learn and flesh out our basis for
understanding. I suppose now I would be in favor of other, less
simple and false panacea paintbrush approaches - with emphasis instead
on education and more - to encourage informed helmet use where it may
be most worthwhile.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

James, if you claim Melbourne's bike share is "relatively successful," you must mean relative to something other than every other modern bike share scheme in the world!

There's a chance I've missed some disastrous one, I suppose. But every article I've ever seen in any publication that mentioned Melbourne's scheme has noted its relative _lack_ of success. And every one noting that has pointed to the mandatory helmet law as the prime reason - in fact, usually the ONLY reason.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

Also from that first link:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html

(Wow! Whodathunk I'd find something I appreciate *there*? :-)

"1. The manufacturers of all forms of safety helmet have to sell their
goods in a brutally competitive global market. With very few
exceptions, safety helmets are made down to the lowest standard
permitted within a given 'local' market."

The commonly availalable bicycle helmets *suck*; and this gives meaty
fodder to AHZ arguments. Here's how I think it ought to be:

Bicycle education is ubiquitous - in the schools and out. While
taking class(es), people who decide they want a good helmet can
schedule an appointment to be fitted, and then wait while a really
good helmet is custom made for their head (you don't take a molar
crown or eyeglasses off the shelf, do you?) I had a motorcycle helmet
made this way.

Now, instead of replacing your crappy foam hat every few years or bump
whichever comes first, if at any time the integrity of your helmet
comes into concern, it goes back to the manufacturer (perhaps not
profit incentivized?) along with your paperwork to be inspected and
fitted with a new liner as may be required.

You could even get custom finish on the shell - with your name or
whatever readily recognizable things you want, which - along with the
custom fit and no MHL - would disincentivize theft.

I know this is pie-in-the-sky too expensive and ll that, but I
envision a world where bicycling is important and such investment
worthwhile. I can envision a subsidy through the (non-profit)
provider - maybe the insurance companies would pony up.

[Dan O]

On Nov 8, 8:47 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:43:50 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

> > On 08/11/12 09:19, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
>
> > >> It is obvious you put too much faith in websites dedicated to anti
>
> > >> helmeteers.
>
> > >>http://bikes.oobrien.com/melbourne/
>
> > >> Despite it being a wet morning, and a little fresh for some, it
>
> > >> seems
>
> > >> 40% of bikes are in use at the moment - and it's no where near the
>
> > >> peak
>
> > >> usage period yet.
>
> > > 40% of how many?  How does the total fleet, and the average number of
>
> > > uses per day, compare with those of Dublin, Paris, London...?
>
> > > Dublin, Ireland hit a million uses within a year.  Each "Dublinbike"
>
> > > gets used an average of ten times per day.  Paris, France has 16,000
>
> > > bicycles, and sitting at a sidewalk cafe, we saw one go by every
>
> > > minute or so.  London has over 8,000 bikes in use.  How's Melbourne
>
> > > by comparison?
>

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_sharing_systemhas some

>
> > > discussion of systems around the world.  It makes Melbourne's sound
>
> > > very sickly.
>

> > > Or seehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPjvZlAl_js especially from

>
> > > 3:55 to about 5:30.
>
> > Relative use is fairly good.  I'd say the program has been relatively
>
> > successful.  If there were thousands more bikes available than being
>
> > used, that would be a failure indeed, but that is not the case.  If
>
> > there were no bikes available to be used, that too would be a failure.
>
> James, if you claim Melbourne's bike share is "relatively successful," you must mean relative to something other than every other modern bike share scheme in the world!
>

Frank, with all due respect and not questioning the crippling
problem(s), I think the fact that it's *there* is a very good step to
success for our common hopes and dreams.

> There's a chance I've missed some disastrous one, I suppose.  But every article I've ever seen in any publication that mentioned Melbourne's scheme has noted its relative _lack_ of success.  And every one noting that has pointed to the mandatory helmet law as the prime reason - in fact, usually the ONLY reason.
>

Yes, it's obviously big red sore thumb (not sure it's the only
holdup), and this will become evident as have many other things like
the ballot initiatives and issues we've seen go from fringe to
mainstream recently.

[Dan O]

"Cites you like" - the link is to a page about a study that found hard
shell helmets give better outcomes than soft / no shell helmets (and
starts off accepting that helmet efficacy in general is well
esptablished) - recommends hard shell helmets.

> something on the Golan Heights ?

"It's the water - and a lot more"

[Dan O]

On Nov 7, 4:14 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> a ticketing video would be interesting.
>
> On the hole, the scene belongs on a different planet.
>
> what are the ten good reason these riders are not wearing helmets ?
>

10) Don't know where they left it

9) Helmets are for pussies

8) Just washed their hair and can't do a thing with it

7) Interferes with earbuds

6) Can't buckle strap without pinching neck fat

5) A bee flew into it once

4) Don't believe helmets are capable of preventing injury

(um... downsides... downsides... (help me out here, Frank... )

3) Want to be respected by the brilliant and heroic Frank K

2) Paid subjects in the no helmet control group of an "informal"
study

(drum roll please... )

1) "It'll never happen to me"

<snip>

[Dan O]

11) Trolling for an "encounter" with a cute cop

[Dan O]

On Nov 6, 7:57 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> IF you add 89% with 50% for 1000000 head injuires amung knuck knuck kncuk children then ya gotta statutory case for helmett laws..
>

Looks like a student project, but anyway:

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/6120/bicycle/prevention.html

"Legislation
Represents perhaps the strongest and broadest means of bringing
about change."

(Note: The opinions expressed herein are solely... and not
necessarily... )

(I know certain factions will have a cow and shout and discount the
whole thing because the words "1989, Thompson et al" appear, but so
what.)

<snip>

>
> wiki handles the helmet field fairly and imprssively - bronze - but the enforcement question prob runs deep into esoteric social theory and stats where truth from fictionwould be difficult to disembull.
>

This is perhaps the best treatment of the subject I've ever seen:

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf

<snip>

[Jay Beattie]

I think this is a good treatment of the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXKWMU7EOyY

I am working on that stop-motion thing. It's part of my Matrix Ninja
(tm) crash avoidance system.

-- Jay Beattie.

[datakoll]

???

http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1152&bih=614&tbm=isch&tbnid=x-uLFf6G0ARjfM:&imgrefurl=http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/&docid=Yo7jIdr1f3IlKM&imgurl=http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/images/jobst-bike2.jpg&w=300&h=400&ei=wL2dUOabM4PA9QTpwYGIDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=2&vpy=115&dur=7270&hovh=259&hovw=194&tx=88&ty=175&sig=108699550340075729111&page=1&tbnh=137&tbnw=102&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:75

[Frank Krygowski]

On Nov 9, 1:05 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:57 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> [snip]

> Looks like a student project, but anyway:

Yes, it does. And the student loses credit at the outset for claiming
there are 1000 bike deaths per year. Most recent data puts it at
630. How much credit should 59% error get?

I'm not just quibbling over a mistaken number. The entire push for
bike helmets is based on the idea that riding a bike is the cause of a
high percentage of serious or fatal brain injuries. But that's flat
out false. In the U.S., it absolutely causes far less than 1% of
brain injury fatalities. It causes less than 2% of serious TBI. As I
keep saying, pedestrian travel is far more dangerous.

So even if bike helmets prevented a large percentage of those few bad
outcomes (which, despite the hype, is far from certain), why does it
make sense to direct the effort to bicyclists instead of other groups
who make up so much more of the problem?

>
> http://enhs.umn.edu/current/6120/bicycle/prevention.html
>
> "Legislation
>     Represents perhaps the strongest and broadest means of bringing
> about change."
>
> (Note:  The opinions expressed herein are solely... and not
> necessarily... )
>
> (I know certain factions will have a cow and shout and discount the
> whole thing because the words "1989, Thompson et al" appear, but so
> what.)

Sure, so what? Why _not_ rely on a 23-year-old paper whose claims
have never once been corroborated? Let's just pretend it's accurate -
as accurate as "Chewing JuicyGum makes you up to 85% sexier!!!!"

>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > wiki handles the helmet field fairly and imprssively - bronze - but the enforcement question prob runs deep into esoteric social theory and stats where truth from fictionwould be difficult to disembull.
>
> This is perhaps the best treatment of the subject I've ever seen:
>
> http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf
>
> <snip>

I think it's safe to say you haven't seen enough to really judge.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 9:40 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:05 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 7:57 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > Looks like a student project, but anyway:
>
> Yes, it does. And the student loses credit at the outset for claiming
> there are 1000 bike deaths per year. Most recent data puts it at
> 630. How much credit should 59% error get?
>

I wasn't endorsing the info - just had seen it and tacked it here as
possibly relevant to the context.

<snip>

> As I
> keep saying, pedestrian travel is far more dangerous.
>
> So even if bike helmets prevented a large percentage of those few bad
> outcomes (which, despite the hype, is far from certain), why does it
> make sense to direct the effort to bicyclists instead of other groups
> who make up so much more of the problem?
>
>
>
> >http://enhs.umn.edu/current/6120/bicycle/prevention.html
>
> > "Legislation
> > Represents perhaps the strongest and broadest means of bringing
> > about change."
>
> > (Note: The opinions expressed herein are solely... and not
> > necessarily... )
>
> > (I know certain factions will have a cow and shout and discount the
> > whole thing because the words "1989, Thompson et al" appear, but so
> > what.)
>
> Sure, so what? Why _not_ rely on a 23-year-old paper whose claims
> have never once been corroborated? Let's just pretend it's accurate -
> as accurate as "Chewing JuicyGum makes you up to 85% sexier!!!!"
>

I don't think the site *relies* on or rests on that one study.

>
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > wiki handles the helmet field fairly and imprssively - bronze - but the enforcement question prob runs deep into esoteric social theory and stats where truth from fictionwould be difficult to disembull.
>
> > This is perhaps the best treatment of the subject I've ever seen:
>
> >http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf
>
> > <snip>
>
> I think it's safe to say you haven't seen enough to really judge.
>

I think *only* I can be the judge of what appears best to me. But I
also know *you* have seen a lot on this subject; what do *you* think
of the referenced Dutch publication?

[Frank Krygowski]

On Nov 9, 4:45 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> I think this is a good treatment of the subject:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXKWMU7EOyY

Why? Because that happens so often?

I took yet another bike ride today. Somehow, yet again, I made it all
the way with no falls, no crashes. It's almost like I was mimicking
the national data, instead of the fear mongering propaganda.

> I am working on that stop-motion thing.

If so, try stopping the motion earlier. I suggest just before the
battery magically jumps out of your electric bike and causes you to
crash.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 9:47 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 4:45 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think this is a good treatment of the subject:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXKWMU7EOyY
>

(Haven't seen it yet... )

> Why? Because that happens so often?
>
> I took yet another bike ride today. Somehow, yet again, I made it all
> the way with no falls, no crashes. It's almost like I was mimicking
> the national data, instead of the fear mongering propaganda.
>
> > I am working on that stop-motion thing.
>
> If so, try stopping the motion earlier. I suggest just before the
> battery magically jumps out of your electric bike and causes you to
> crash.
>

Frank, you know that other thread about the horrible left cross? The
rider in that one would probably have been fine if she'd been wobbling
along helmetless on a crappy BSO with a plastic grocery bag hanging
from each handlebar, okay? different strokes

[Graham]

"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:00da9765-f9ed-48e5...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 4:45pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

[snip]

I took yet another bike ride today. Somehow, yet again, I made it all
the way with no falls, no crashes. It's almost like I was mimicking
the national data, instead of the fear mongering propaganda.

- Frank Krygowski

You lead a very charmed life. Try telling that to Bradley Wiggins or Shane Sutton both knocked off their bikes in the last few days or the guy that was killed in my town last week. Or the guy leading our pace line a couple of weeks ago who was forced off the road by an impatient driver trying to overtake the line going into a blind bend. While you are at it you might also tell several of my mates who have already fallen foul of wet leaves or mud left on the road by farmers' tractors this Autumn. Falls and crashes are unfortunately part of cycling and always have been. On average I have at least one a year.

Fortunately the majority of all these falls and crashes are not serious and never make the statistics you keep quoting. Most regular cyclists shrug them off and accept them as being part of the activity. Trying to imply that this is not the case is equally misleading propaganda.

If you are involved in cycling you are aware of a continuous stream of reports of incidents involving both strangers and friends which will never find their way into your statistics. Rather than trying to suppress the obvious risks you should be encouraging cyclists to avail themselves of anything that might reduce their risk of injury of whatever severity whilst at the same time encouraging them to develop their bike handling skills and experience. Simply implying anyone can just jump on a bike without these and have a vanishingly low risk experience is dangerous in itself. This is even more important for the many who are now being attracted into cycling for recreation and sport. Here spills will be inevitable!

On the helmet front I would prefer to advise rather than force someone to wear one. I "choose" to wear one and in my personal opinion it has reduced the injuries I would likely have sustained in several crashes. Dents in the helmets and deep scars from sliding along the ground could, to my mind, quite easily have been in my head and face had I not been wearing one.

Graham.

[Jay Beattie]

On Nov 10, 2:40 am, "Graham" <h2gt2g42-micenewgro...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:00da9765-f9ed-48e5...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

Seems like a reasonable approach to me. I'm not for MHLs for a number
of reasons, but I'm sick of population studies being trotted out as
evidence of my personal risk -- or the potential benefit (or lack of
benefit) of helmet wearing to me. The only relevant questions to me
are: (1) do helmets prevent injury, (2) am I at a substantial (non-
negligible) risk of sustaining a type of injury that a helmet would
prevent, and (3) is there an aspect of helmet wearing (heat, weight,
increased neck injury, social stigma) that outweighs the benefit.
Frank has zero risk of injury, so the other questions are moot. For
the rest of us, more thought is required.

-- Jay Beattie.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:40:20 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:00da9765-f9ed-48e5...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>

> I took yet another bike ride today. Somehow, yet again, I made it all
>
> the way with no falls, no crashes. It's almost like I was mimicking
>
> the national data, instead of the fear mongering propaganda.
>
>
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
>
> You lead a very charmed life. Try telling that to Bradley Wiggins or Shane Sutton both knocked off their bikes in the last few days or the guy that was killed in my town last week. Or the guy leading our pace line a couple of weeks ago who was forced off the road by an impatient driver trying to overtake the line going into a blind bend. While you are at it you might also tell several of my mates who have already fallen foul of wet leaves or mud left on the road by farmers' tractors this Autumn. Falls and crashes are unfortunately part of cycling and always have been. On average I have at least one a year.

Well, I must say your record astonishes me. I've had two on-road moving falls in 40 years, and that may be unusually good; but I have lots and lots of cycling friends, yet none have ever admitted to at least one fall or crash per year. The only friend I had with such a record may have given up cycling after she also fell and broke her wrist (or perhaps forearm, I forget) while skiing. (She moved away soon after that, so I can't verify the rumors.)

I can believe that avid mountain bikers fall pretty frequently, i.e. at least once per year. Ditto criterium racers. But anything like ordinary riding? Sorry, I don't think so.

Of course, I can post data (again!) showing that normal riders go great distances between falls, so the extant data (again!) backs up what I've been saying here. Not that everybody fits the average, of course. But if you crash once per year, it may be advisable to figure out why you're crashing so much more than average, and what causes the crashes, and how to prevent them.

> Fortunately the majority of all these falls and crashes are not serious and never make the statistics you keep quoting. Most regular cyclists shrug them off and accept them as being part of the activity. Trying to imply that this is not the case is equally misleading propaganda.

Hold on, please. If a fall is so minor that it causes no problem, why should it be held up as proof that we need armor? As I've said, it seems to be only cyclists who spend so much time pretending their favorite activity is foolishly dangerous. There's no sense in that.

> If you are involved in cycling you are aware of a continuous stream of reports of incidents involving both strangers and friends which will never find their way into your statistics.

I'm my club's safety chairman, and as such, I believe I hear about most falls involving club members. They are very few. Of several hundred members, I seem to hear of about two or three per year.

> Rather than trying to suppress the obvious risks you should be encouraging cyclists to avail themselves of anything that might reduce their risk of injury of whatever severity whilst at the same time encouraging them to develop their bike handling skills and experience.

I do a column for almost every monthly club newsletter. I encourage cyclists to avoid the problems that cause the crashes. To me, that's much more sensible than saying "Bicycling is very dangerous, but as long as you wear a helmet you'll be OK." That seems to be the advice the public gets. (In fact, one of my friends in the club used that as a joke in one discussion.)

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:41:10 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
> I'm not for MHLs for a number
>
> of reasons, but I'm sick of population studies being trotted out as
>
> evidence of my personal risk -- or the potential benefit (or lack of
>
> benefit) of helmet wearing to me. The only relevant questions to me
>
> are: (1) do helmets prevent injury, (2) am I at a substantial (non-
>
> negligible) risk of sustaining a type of injury that a helmet would
>
> prevent, and (3) is there an aspect of helmet wearing (heat, weight,
>
> increased neck injury, social stigma) that outweighs the benefit.
>
> Frank has zero risk of injury, so the other questions are moot. For
>
> the rest of us, more thought is required.

Jay, explain to me again why it is that pedestrians shouldn't be advised to wear helmets. Remember, something like 5 or 6 times the fatality count, with TBI percentages just like cyclists. Something like 3 times the risk per mile.

Do you figure (1) helmets that protect in bike crashes wouldn't protect in walking crashes? Or (2) that despite all the data, there's somehow no risk in walking? Or is it (3) just that even if wearing a walking helmet might be three times smarter than wearing a bike helmet, you refuse the social stigma of wearing such a funny looking thing?

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Nov 10, 9:28 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:41:10 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
> > I'm not for MHLs for a number
>
> > of reasons, but I'm sick of population studies being trotted out as
>
> > evidence of my personal risk -- or the potential benefit (or lack of
>
> > benefit) of helmet wearing to me. The only relevant questions to me
>
> > are: (1) do helmets prevent injury, (2) am I at a substantial (non-
>
> > negligible) risk of sustaining a type of injury that a helmet would
>
> > prevent, and (3) is there an aspect of helmet wearing (heat, weight,
>
> > increased neck injury, social stigma) that outweighs the benefit.
>
> > Frank has zero risk of injury, so the other questions are moot. For
>
> > the rest of us, more thought is required.
>
> Jay, explain to me again why it is that pedestrians shouldn't be advised to wear helmets.

Because nobody should be advised to wear helmets. I thought you
understood this.

Pedestrians may be advised of the *availability* of helmets (if they
seem to need this information), and they may be advised of the value
and limitations of helmets if they're interested (or the advisor is a
busybody). Same with bicyclists, AFAIC.

> Remember, something like 5 or 6 times the fatality count, with TBI percentages just like cyclists. Something like 3 times the risk per mile.
>

> Do you figure (1) helmets that protect in bike crashes wouldn't protect in walking crashes? Or (2) that despite all the data, there's somehow no risk in walking? Or is it (3) just that even if wearing a walking helmet might be three times smarter than wearing a bike helmet...

Hey, remember this refrain: "you're a fucking idiot, krygowski!"

>, you refuse the social stigma of wearing such a funny looking thing?
>

Cite?

[Dan O]

On Nov 10, 9:23 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:40:20 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

> > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:00da9765-f9ed-48e5...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

>
> > I took yet another bike ride today. Somehow, yet again, I made it all
>
> > the way with no falls, no crashes. It's almost like I was mimicking
>
> > the national data, instead of the fear mongering propaganda.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> > You lead a very charmed life. Try telling that to Bradley Wiggins or Shane Sutton both knocked off their bikes in the last few days or the guy that was killed in my town last week. Or the guy leading our pace line a couple of weeks ago who was forced off the road by an impatient driver trying to overtake the line going into a blind bend. While you are at it you might also tell several of my mates who have already fallen foul of wet leaves or mud left on the road by farmers' tractors this Autumn. Falls and crashes are unfortunately part of cycling and always have been. On average I have at least one a year.
>
> Well, I must say your record astonishes me. I've had two on-road moving falls in 40 years, and that may be unusually good; but I have lots and lots of cycling friends, yet none have ever admitted to at least one fall or crash per year. The only friend I had with such a record may have given up cycling after she also fell and broke her wrist (or perhaps forearm, I forget) while skiing. (She moved away soon after that, so I can't verify the rumors.)
>
> I can believe that avid mountain bikers fall pretty frequently, i.e. at least once per year. Ditto criterium racers. But anything like ordinary riding? Sorry, I don't think so.
>

> Of course, I can post data (again!)...

<snip blah, blah, blah... >

You said it yourself in the "super fast" chain thread: "For most of
my riding"

I've said it before: I could easily ride in pretty much absolute hall
monitor safety as you _if that was my focus and floated my boat_

different strokes

[Graham]

<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2f2607ef-72c0-425a...@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:40:20 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:00da9765-f9ed-48e5...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

> Well, I must say your record astonishes me. I've had two on-road moving falls in 40 years, and that may be unusually good;

As I said you lead a charmed life or you are an exceptionally cautious cyclist. For those of us where the fun of cycling comes from travelling at more than a snails pace through challenging terrain life is a little more risky.

> Of course, I can post data (again!) showing that normal riders go great distances between falls, so the extant data (again!)

Please don't. Forget your obsession with data. Those are only the RECORDED statistics. I guess most of the readers here who cover between 5,000 and 10,000 miles a year in all weathers and across all terrains fall much more frequently than your once every 20 years. It would not surprise me if that does not apply also to children and novices. I assume your "normal" category excludes these riders.

> But if you crash once per year, it may be advisable to figure out why you're crashing so much more than average, and what causes the crashes, and how to prevent them.

The last crash was just over a year ago - a tight bend on a 20-25% mountain descent travelling at what I considered to be a safe speed for the conditions only to find just beyond the apex a herd of mountain sheep had crossed with several leaving their calling cards. Now you could say I should have anticipated that (which I might have if I had actually seen the sheep crossing) but its one of those low probability risks I am prepared to accept. The crash before was on black ice so should I not ride in winter. The two prior to that were losing my back wheel on wet leaves while climbing out of the saddle on steep climbs so should I stay clear of steep wooded climbs in the Autumn? These are risks I know exist but I take them in my persuit of the enjoyment of cycling rather than not riding at all or reducing my pace to a crawl whenever that level of risk becomes non-zero.

> Hold on, please. If a fall is so minor that it causes no problem, why should it be held up as proof that we need armor?

Why are you so incapable of nuance. Why is everything so black and white. I do not regard bruising and road rash as causing no problem. They are just injuries that do not require hospitalisation and are not recorded in your beloved statistics.

My reason for wearing a helmet is to minimise whatever injuries might result from a crash regardless of their severity. I am in no way trying to suggest cycling is so inherantly dangerous as to warrant armor as you put it. Nor am I going to try and convince people that cycling is perfectly safe and that a helmet will offer no benefit whatsoever. It is personal choice. All this nonesence of linking cycling helmets with walking helmets is to my mind is exactly that, nonesence. If I were to adopt your attitude and meaninglessly quote my walking experience the number of accidents I have had walking since I was a child is zero!!!!

> I do a column for almost every monthly club newsletter. I encourage cyclists to avoid the problems that cause the crashes.

Very laudable and something we would all support. However you should not try and convince people not to wear helmets when others think they have benefit. It should be down to personal choice.

> To me, that's much more sensible than saying "Bicycling is very dangerous, but as long as you wear a helmet you'll be OK."

I and others are not saying this and again we are back to nuance. You will insist in this black and white argument which gets us nowhere. All I am saying is that if you ride a bike you have an above zero chance of a fall or a crash resulting in some form of injury and that chance increases the more "enthusiastically" you ride your bike or with the locality in which you ride it. I encompass, weather, terrain and speed in my definition of enthusiasm. Further I simply go on to say that, in my opinion, wearing a helmet has reduced the level of injury I have sustained in several of the crashes I have had.

To me it would me more sensible to say "that in certain types of crashes a helmet could reduce the severity of your injuries and you have to be the judge of whether, for your style of riding, that it is worth any inconvenience you might perceive in wearing one". I do not think any of the guys who have joined in here would claim that a helmet would do anything for you if you were hit full on by a fast moving vehicle.

Graham.

[Jay Beattie]

On Nov 10, 9:28 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:41:10 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
> >   I'm not for MHLs for a number
>
> > of reasons, but I'm sick of population studies being trotted out as
>
> > evidence of my personal risk -- or the potential benefit (or lack of
>
> > benefit) of helmet wearing to me.  The only relevant questions to me
>
> > are: (1) do helmets prevent injury, (2) am I at a substantial (non-
>
> > negligible)  risk of sustaining a type of injury that a helmet would
>
> > prevent, and (3) is there an aspect of helmet wearing (heat, weight,
>
> > increased neck injury, social stigma) that outweighs the benefit.
>
> > Frank has zero risk of injury, so the other questions are moot. For
>
> > the rest of us, more thought is required.
>
> Jay, explain to me again why it is that pedestrians shouldn't be advised to wear helmets.  Remember, something like 5 or 6 times the fatality count, with TBI percentages just like cyclists.  Something like 3 times the risk per mile.

My risk per mile from walking, based on my personal experience, is
zero -- much like your experience riding. Again, I don't care about
the population studies when they do not reflect my personal risk
profile, and I'm not making public health decisions. I make personal
health decisions.

>
> Do you figure (1) helmets that protect in bike crashes wouldn't protect in walking crashes?  Or (2) that despite all the data, there's somehow no risk in walking?  Or is it (3) just that even if wearing a walking helmet might be three times smarter than wearing a bike helmet, you refuse the social stigma of wearing such a funny looking thing?

I've never seen a walking crash -- I have trouble picturing a walking
crash. I could see a pedestrian getting hit in a cross-walk, and
frankly, the pedestrian injuries and deaths around here are primarily
in the same spots, and at least in those spots, I would consider
wearing full racing leathers and a motorcycle helmet to cross the
street. In NYC, I would just use the guy next to me as a human
shield. If I felt endangered, I might get one of those hat helmets.
-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

And yet others among us:

http://wreg.com/2012/07/21/police-drunk-driver-hits-two-pedestrians-victims-ticketed-for-jaywalking/


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Sir Ridesalot]

[davethedave]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:10:59 -0800, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

err... Wrote nothing!

>> last year Aussie LE fined
>>
>> 21 upper middle class jocks
>>
>> 23 college students
>>
>> 137 aboriginees
>>
>> 243 negroes
>>
>> 4 Italians
>>
>> 2 Finns
>>
>> 1 NORWEGIAN
>>
>> 1,386 Englishmen
>>

Annnnnnnnnnnnd a partridge in a pear treeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
--
davethedave

[davethedave]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:02:32 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

>> I've never seen a walking crash -- I have trouble picturing a walking
>> crash. I could see a pedestrian getting hit in a cross-walk, and
>> frankly, the pedestrian injuries and deaths around here are primarily
>> in the same spots, and at least in those spots, I would consider
>> wearing full racing leathers and a motorcycle helmet to cross the
>> street. In NYC, I would just use the guy next to me as a human shield.
>> If I felt endangered, I might get one of those hat helmets. -- Jay
>> Beattie.
>>
>>
>>
> And yet others among us:
>
> http://wreg.com/2012/07/21/police-drunk-driver-hits-two-pedestrians-
victims-ticketed-for-jaywalking/

That's just so wrong!

Jaywalking!

FFS! They should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Reckless endangerment or something. Having the temerity to cross in front
of a pissed driver or something like that. And at such a busy time as
rush hour! What were they expecting?!
--
davethedave

[Sir Ridesalot]

That wasn't posted by me. I've been working on a bicycle that last bit.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

On Nov 10, 1:54 pm, "Graham" <h2gt2g42-micenewgro...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2f2607ef-72c0-425a...@googlegroups.com...

> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:40:20 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

> > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:00da9765-f9ed-48e5...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

> > Well, I must say your record astonishes me.  I've had two on-road moving falls in 40 years, and that may be unusually good;
>
> As I said you lead a charmed life or you are an exceptionally cautious cyclist. For those of us where the fun of cycling comes from travelling at more than a snails pace through challenging terrain life is a little more risky.

No, Graham, I don't ride at a snail's pace. Maybe I do lead a charmed
life - I couldn't disprove that, I guess - but I tend to believe in
knowledge, awareness and good judgement a lot more than I believe in
magic.

That doesn't mean I've never been lucky. One of my closest calls in
recent years was on a 20+ mph downhill on a club ride. I was all
tucked in, when a groundhog scampered out of the weeds on the right
and started sprinting downhill parallel to my path. I hit the brakes,
but for a moment he was right beside me and matching my speed. If he
had turned into me then, I might have crashed; but I did slow enough
that I dropped behind him before he cut left across my path.

I can't say I was watching specifically for groundhogs. But watching
for potholes allowed me to spot the groundhog. It would probably work
for sheep droppings, too.

> > Of course, I can post data (again!) showing that normal riders go great distances between falls, so the extant data (again!)
>
> Please don't. Forget your obsession with data. Those are only the RECORDED statistics.

The statistics they record are usually the important ones - i.e the
KSI ones. The ones they don't record are the ones that aren't
important - i.e. the "I toppled and tore my new jersey, and I needed a
band-aid too" kind.

Really, that should not be difficult to understand. Why is it that
some cyclists point to every torn jersey and band-aid as an incident
where they "might have died"?

> I guess most of the readers here who cover between 5,000 and 10,000 miles a year in all weathers and across all terrains fall much more frequently than your once every 20 years. It would not surprise me if that does not apply also to children and novices. I assume your "normal" category excludes these riders.

Any country's data on cycling tries to include _all_ cyclists. They
don't ignore a pro racer killed by a car, saying "Oh, he rides too
much to count." Besides, I would _hope_ that people who are avid,
high-mileage cyclists would be much better than average. They
certainly _should_ be, if they have any curiosity about how to stay
out of crashes!

> > But if you crash once per year, it may be advisable to figure out why you're crashing so much more than average, and what causes the crashes, and how to prevent them.
>
> The last crash was just over a year ago - a tight bend on a 20-25% mountain descent travelling at what I considered to be a safe speed for the conditions only to find just beyond the apex a herd of mountain sheep had crossed with several leaving their calling cards. Now you could say I should have anticipated that (which I might have if I had actually seen the sheep crossing) but its one of those low probability risks I am prepared to accept. The crash before was on black ice so should I not ride in winter. The two prior to that were losing my back wheel on wet leaves while climbing out of the saddle on steep climbs so should I stay clear of steep wooded climbs in the Autumn? These are risks I know exist but I take them in my persuit of the enjoyment of cycling rather than not riding at all or reducing my pace to a crawl whenever that level of risk becomes non-zero.

I guess we all have our stories to tell. I can't say much about
mountain sheep. Around here, it's Amish horse droppings instead. Ice
in the winter? Sure. Wet leaves in autumn? Hardly a surprise, and
something I've warned others about along with wet steel (e.g. manhole
covers and RR tracks). But honestly, I'd never before heard of
falling while _climbing_ because of wet leaves; I've heard of braking
and turning falls. Still, I watch carefully for such stuff and I don't
crash. Maybe I'll crash tomorrow - but I doubt it.

> > Hold on, please.  If a fall is so minor that it causes no problem, why should it be held up as proof that we need armor?
>
> Why are you so incapable of nuance. Why is everything so black and white. I do not regard bruising and road rash as causing no problem. They are just injuries that do not require hospitalisation and are not recorded in your beloved statistics.

<sigh> Graham, you now seem to be constructing a "bicycling is
dangerous" argument based on phantom, unrecorded injuries. Are you
claiming that these unrecorded injuries happen only while cycling, and
that the public health people who try to assess relative danger
somehow capture _all_ the tiny scratches from other activities?
Sorry, that's silly. I can cite papers where they've looked precisely
for those sorts of injuries in cycling, as well as in other
activities, and _still_ found cycling to be very safe! (I know, you
don't want data or citations, but still....)

> My reason for wearing a helmet is to minimise whatever injuries might result from a crash regardless of their severity. I am in no way trying to suggest cycling is so inherantly dangerous as to warrant armor as you put it. Nor am I going to try and convince people that cycling is perfectly safe and that a helmet will offer no benefit whatsoever. It is personal choice.

Fine. Make your choice. If data disagrees with your choice, you're
still allowed your choice. But if data disagrees with your choice,
don't claim that data is worthless, or that phantom data proves your
choice is correct.

> All this nonesence of linking cycling helmets with walking helmets is to my mind is exactly that, nonesence. If I were to adopt your attitude and meaninglessly quote my walking experience the number of accidents I have had walking since I was a child is zero!!!!

I'm curious whether you understand that in your country (Britain,
yes?) and in mine (USA) _and_ in Canada and in Australia and in all
others for which I've seen data, cycling does seem to be safer per km
than walking. (Actually, some very recent British data puts cycling
slightly worse than walking, but some have expressed doubts. In the
other countries I've named, it's not even close.)

If, as in the U.S., walking is over three times more dangerous per km
traveled than bicycling, why are we to treat that as "nonsence" [sic]?

> > I do a column for almost every monthly club newsletter.  I encourage cyclists to avoid the problems that cause the crashes.
>
> Very laudable and something we would all support. However you should not try and convince people not to wear helmets when others think they have benefit. It should be down to personal choice.

I'm encouraging others to become aware of actual facts, and think
rationally. If a person decides to wear a helmet, I do not try to
talk them out of it. In fact, on "official" club rides, I do wear a
helmet, just so I won't have to spend the ride arguing about the
topic. But I feel this is a discussion group. If people want to
discuss the topic here, I'll certainly discuss it.

> > To me, that's much more sensible than saying "Bicycling is very dangerous, but as long as you wear a helmet you'll be OK."
>
> I and others are not saying this and again we are back to nuance. You will insist in this black and white argument which gets us nowhere. All I am saying is that if you ride a bike you have an above zero chance of a fall or a crash resulting in some form of injury and that chance increases the more "enthusiastically" you ride your bike or with the locality in which you ride it. I encompass, weather, terrain and speed in my definition of enthusiasm.

Hmm. I wonder how you'd feel about helmets for cross-country running
races. You know, up hills and down, grassy fields and rocky woods...?

> Further I simply go on to say that, in my opinion, wearing a helmet has reduced the level of injury I have sustained in several of the crashes I have had.
>
> To me it would me more sensible to say "that in certain types of crashes a helmet could reduce the severity of your injuries and you have to be the judge of whether, for your style of riding, that it is worth any inconvenience you might perceive in wearing one". I do not think any of the guys who have joined in here would claim that a helmet would do anything for you if you were hit full on by a fast moving vehicle.

Well, that last sentence counts as progress in my mind! Not sure if
you're aware, but in American papers, even if a cyclist is hit head on
by a speeding dump truck, they're sure to say "He wasn't wearing a
helmet" if they can.

(Oddly enough, in at least two local fatalities, they failed to
mention "they cyclist _was_ wearing a helmet." Almost seems like they
want to protect the myth!)

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

spooky

[Frank Krygowski]

On Nov 10, 4:33 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 9:28 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:41:10 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
> > >   I'm not for MHLs for a number
>
> > > of reasons, but I'm sick of population studies being trotted out as
>
> > > evidence of my personal risk -- or the potential benefit (or lack of
>
> > > benefit) of helmet wearing to me.  The only relevant questions to me
>
> > > are: (1) do helmets prevent injury, (2) am I at a substantial (non-
>
> > > negligible)  risk of sustaining a type of injury that a helmet would
>
> > > prevent, and (3) is there an aspect of helmet wearing (heat, weight,
>
> > > increased neck injury, social stigma) that outweighs the benefit.
>
> > > Frank has zero risk of injury, so the other questions are moot. For
>
> > > the rest of us, more thought is required.
>
> > Jay, explain to me again why it is that pedestrians shouldn't be advised to wear helmets.  Remember, something like 5 or 6 times the fatality count, with TBI percentages just like cyclists.  Something like 3 times the risk per mile.
>
> My risk per mile from walking, based on my personal experience, is
> zero -- much like your experience riding.  Again, I don't care about
> the population studies when they do not reflect my personal risk
> profile, and I'm not making public health decisions.  I make personal
> health decisions.
>
>
>
> > Do you figure (1) helmets that protect in bike crashes wouldn't protect in walking crashes?  Or (2) that despite all the data, there's somehow no risk in walking?  Or is it (3) just that even if wearing a walking helmet might be three times smarter than wearing a bike helmet, you refuse the social stigma of wearing such a funny looking thing?
>
> I've never seen a walking crash -- I have trouble picturing a walking
> crash.

Seriously??? You've never seen anyone fall while walking?

I've mentioned these before, but:
1) about two weeks ago, we were on a woods hike with some very good
friends when one tripped and fell literally flat on her face. Her face
was bruised and cut in several places, and she says she "blacked out"
momentarily.

2) One of the few local people who enter helmet debates with me told
me "I know I would never fall just walking." Within a month, he did
exactly that - ironically, as he and I were leaving our club's century
headquarters.

3) I've fallen badly in my own driveway, on black ice. Interestingly,
my pelvis barely missed a sharp concrete edge that I think would have
caused a serious break. I got up, calmly walked into the house, and
suddenly began shaking uncontrollably.

4) Another friend fell flat on her face from tripping on a sidewalk
during a lunchtime stroll with friends. Her husband was grilled about
possible spouse abuse when he took her to the ER.

5) Another was hit by a car and knocked to the ground when walking in
a crosswalk. At first, she thought she had no injury, so foolishly let
the car driver go. Fortunately, her injuries were minor, and cleared
up after a few weeks of therapy.

I can go on... but again, my personal experience seems to match
national data. I think you may be exercising some careful avoidance
of fact.

> I could see a pedestrian getting hit in a cross-walk, and
> frankly, the pedestrian injuries and deaths around here are primarily
> in the same spots, and at least in those spots, I would consider
> wearing full racing leathers and a motorcycle helmet to cross the
> street.

Please let us know when you've done that! Pointing us to a posted
photo would be nice, as well!

- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 11/11/12 18:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Seriously??? You've never seen anyone fall while walking?

I don't recall ever having fallen and injured myself while walking, and
I've done a fair bit of walking, carrying a loaded gun and game I'd
shot, or a fishing rod.

> 3) I've fallen badly in my own driveway, on black ice. Interestingly,
> my pelvis barely missed a sharp concrete edge that I think would have
> caused a serious break. I got up, calmly walked into the house, and
> suddenly began shaking uncontrollably.

Priceless.

Danger! Danger! Beware of pelvis attacking concrete edges!

You should have had your helmet on. You know they prevent knee
injuries, likely pelvis injuries also. Oh wait, you only almost broke
your pelvis. Is that like "I only tore my jersey, but I could have died"?


--
JS

[James]

On 11/11/12 19:04, Phil W Lee wrote:

> And will remain so unless you either never walk anywhere, or suffer
> some serious accident while doing so.
> In my case, I have no doubt, having been the victim of a hit & run
> while walking which nearly killed me, and from which I still suffer
> the after-effects, despite it being over 30 years ago.
> I wasn't doing anything particularly dangerous, like dodging between
> traffic lanes to cross a road - I was walking normally on the footway,
> when a driver who had apparently fallen asleep wiped me out.

Had you been riding a bicycle you may be dead.

> Newspapers are full of such stories.

Ours isn't.

>> Again, I don't care about
>> the population studies when they do not reflect my personal risk
>> profile, and I'm not making public health decisions. I make personal
>> health decisions.
>

> There is no practical way to establish what your personal risk profile
> is except by looking at the population studies.

I don't fit neatly into a population, at least not one I've found.

--
JS.

[Graham]

"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bb061f9f-a404-40dc...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 10, 1:54pm, "Graham" <h2gt2g42-micenewgro...@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2f2607ef-72c0-425a...@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:40:20 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:00da9765-f9ed-48e5...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

> Maybe I do lead a charmed life

I think so. So be very thankful and long may it remain so.

> That doesn't mean I've never been lucky.

Any serious rider has many such incidents and regards them as unremarkable. Whenever they avoid what looks, at the time, as if it could have resulted in a crash they put it down to experience, awareness and their bike handling skills. I guess we can agree that those are the major contibutory factors which played as much or probably a greater part than luck.

> The ones they don't record are the ones that aren't important

To me serious bruising and road rash are important but I guess like many others here I never submit them to any statistical record.

> where they "might have died"?

Exageration again (on your part I mean). In all of the crashes where I believe a helmet has reduced my level of injury it is doubtful that, without it, I would have died, but who knows. What I do believe is that it prevented my head hitting the tarmac and then subsequently my head and face suffering the same fate as some of the other parts of my body as they slid along the ground. My helmets, rather than my head, have the dents and scars to prove it.

> Any country's data on cycling tries to include _all_ cyclists. They
don't ignore a pro racer killed by a car, saying "Oh, he rides too
much to count."

I thought you said we were effectively in agreement that helemts offered effectively no protection against a car so what's the point of dwelling on such statistics. What the data will not record will be all the crashes the pro has in training or racing where he suffers the types crash I have been talking about.

>Besides, I would _hope_ that people who are avid, high-mileage cyclists would be much better than average.

As I said in my previous posts it all depends on how "enthusiastically" you ride and what level of underlying risk you thereby accept.

> I guess we all have our stories to tell.

We sure do. All sports abound with personal anecdotes. If you never have any experiences worthy of recount then I guess you are not deriving anywhere near the full benefit the sport has to offer.

>But honestly, I'd never before heard of falling while _climbing_ because of wet leaves;

Well I can tell you they are one of the more painful crashes. Rather than dissipating the energy by sliding as in most cornering crashes you simply bounce. All that happens is that your back wheel loses grip virtually instantaneously while you have maximum downward pressure on the pedal. Your back wheel then flips out to the opposite side of the pedal you are pushing on and that pedal rapidly drops to the bottom of stroke. The result is that the bike flips over rapidly on its side dumping you very quickly and very painfully on your hip, shoulder and head in that order. That's where a helmet can come in handy. Unfortunately you can very rarely tell when this is going to happen as it is possible to ride over fallen leaves without incident. The problem appears to be when they are layered and it is the layers that slide one over another rather than the tyre itself loosing grip.

> <sigh> Graham, you now seem to be constructing a "bicycling is
dangerous" argument based on phantom, unrecorded injuries.

As we are sighing please permit me one of my own. I am not constructing any argument to say "bicycling is dangerous" nor am I talking about phantom injuries. I am talking about all those injuries most keen cyclists right off to experience and whilst painful will never be recorded. Again I repeat both my nuance point and what I said below. Please do not keep trying to twist it into something it is not:

> My reason for wearing a helmet is to minimise whatever injuries might result from a crash regardless of their severity. I am in no way trying to suggest cycling is so inherantly dangerous as to warrant armor as you put it. Nor am I going to try and convince people that cycling is perfectly safe and that a helmet will offer no benefit whatsoever. It is personal choice.

> Fine. Make your choice. If data disagrees with your choice, you're
still allowed your choice.

Thank you. Perhaps we are getting somewhere.

> But if data disagrees with your choice, don't claim that data is worthless, or that phantom data proves your choice is correct.

I am doing neither. My contention is simply that the data does not capture the vast majority of bike accidents that result in the types of injury which, whilst painful, do not warrant reporting. I also content that it is in these types of accident that helmets offer some protection which in my case I believe to be worthwhile.

I have no interest in walking accidents. I have never had one and hope I never will but I do have them riding my bike. In deciding whether to wear a helmet when cycling the risks of walking are, to me, irrelevant.

> I'm encouraging others to become aware of actual facts, and think
rationally. If a person decides to wear a helmet, I do not try to
talk them out of it.

That's comforting to know. Not a true AHZ then after all ;)

> In fact, on "official" club rides, I do wear a
helmet, just so I won't have to spend the ride arguing about the
topic.

Progress? In the groups I ride with it tends to be the other way round. The subject is nearly always raised by the AHZs trying to justify their choice, usually quoting endless statistics (sound familiar), when the guys who wear helments could not care less whether other riders wear them or not. They tend to be comfortable in their own decision and content to leave it at that.

> But I feel this is a discussion group. If people want to
discuss the topic here, I'll certainly discuss it.

That's good to hear but as I have said a little more nuance and balance would be appreciated rather than a tendency to turn what is said into an extreme position which it clearly is not.

> Hmm. I wonder how you'd feel about helmets for cross-country running
races. You know, up hills and down, grassy fields and rocky woods...?

To be honest I have never even considered it. I have done many multi-terrain races, as they are called now in the UK, and I have never had, seen or heard of a fall resulting in any form of injury in which a helmet would have been any use. A wooly hat to keep my head warm in the depths of winter is about as far as I have gone by the way of headware.

> Well, that last sentence counts as progress in my mind!

Depends what you mean by progress. I have stated clearly why I see a benefit to wearing a helmet and not changed from that. I have also stated where I believe a helmet offers little or no bebefit. Again no change there. For any meaningful discussion among "cyclists" as to the benefits of helmets then I believe we could all agree they offer little or no benefit if you are hit full on by a motor vehicle and simply rule those events out of the argument completely.

>Not sure if
you're aware, but in American papers, even if a cyclist is hit head on
by a speeding dump truck, they're sure to say "He wasn't wearing a
helmet" if they can.

>(Oddly enough, in at least two local fatalities, they failed to
mention "they cyclist _was_ wearing a helmet." Almost seems like they
want to protect the myth!)

My last paragraph and your last two statements above demonstrate that I hold a veiw which might or might not be shared by others here which is nuanced and based on personal experience whilst yours verges on the dogmatic or even paranoic. Whilst we could continue this discussion I can see your mind is made up and nothing I can say will change it.

I will continue to wear my helmet and enjoy my cycling and I truely hope your luck holds out and you enjoy many more thousand miles in the saddle with or without your helmet.

Graham.

[datakoll]

>
>
> If so, try stopping the motion earlier. I suggest just before the
>
> battery magically jumps out of your electric bike and causes you to
>
> crash.
>

CCCCCCCCCCCCC

up to now age 67, I've rolled to an upper arm or thrown an arm around myn head.

The Brandt alike dummy doesn't react, falls on forehead.

Is that normal ? no reaction ?

I guess falling needs practice.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:15:05 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
> On 11/11/12 18:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > Seriously??? You've never seen anyone fall while walking?
>
>
>
> I don't recall ever having fallen and injured myself while walking, and
>
> I've done a fair bit of walking, carrying a loaded gun and game I'd
>
> shot, or a fishing rod.

Hmm. Well "I don't recall" can cover a lot. Still, there's that damned data.

Do you want it for your country, Australia? No, of course you don't - but here it is anyway:

From Australian Transport Safety Bureau's "Discussion Paper: Cross Modal Safety Comparisons" (ABN 86 267 354 017): Pedestrian fatality rate, 16.12 per 100 million kilometers traveled. Bicycle fatality rate, only 4.24 per 100 million kilometers traveled. So someone down there is getting hurt while walking, even if your personal walking is as safe as my personal cycling.

(BTW, that's an average of sixteen million miles ridden between cycling deaths. The data's a bit old, but still - not very dangerous to ride, is it?)

>
>
>
> > 3) I've fallen badly in my own driveway, on black ice. Interestingly,
>
> > my pelvis barely missed a sharp concrete edge that I think would have
>
> > caused a serious break. I got up, calmly walked into the house, and
>
> > suddenly began shaking uncontrollably.
>
>
>
> Priceless.
>
>
>
> Danger! Danger! Beware of pelvis attacking concrete edges!

I prefer "Beware of taking the trash out on icy nights while wearing slippers with smooth leather soles."

And note, that's not victim blaming. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:21:02 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
>
>
> I don't fit neatly into a population, at least not one I've found.

You seem pretty typical of the "Don't tell _ME_ that biking isn't dangerous!" population. Also the "Data means nothing" population.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

On Nov 11, 12:05 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> considered Sat, 10 Nov 2012

> 13:33:22 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 10, 9:28 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:41:10 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
> >> >   I'm not for MHLs for a number
>
> >> > of reasons, but I'm sick of population studies being trotted out as
>
> >> > evidence of my personal risk -- or the potential benefit (or lack of
>
> >> > benefit) of helmet wearing to me.  The only relevant questions to me
>
> >> > are: (1) do helmets prevent injury, (2) am I at a substantial (non-
>
> >> > negligible)  risk of sustaining a type of injury that a helmet would
>
> >> > prevent, and (3) is there an aspect of helmet wearing (heat, weight,
>
> >> > increased neck injury, social stigma) that outweighs the benefit.
>
> >> > Frank has zero risk of injury, so the other questions are moot. For
>
> >> > the rest of us, more thought is required.
>
> >> Jay, explain to me again why it is that pedestrians shouldn't be advised to wear helmets.  Remember, something like 5 or 6 times the fatality count, with TBI percentages just like cyclists.  Something like 3 times the risk per mile.
>
> >My risk per mile from walking, based on my personal experience, is
> >zero -- much like your experience riding.
>

> And will remain so unless you either never walk anywhere, or suffer
> some serious accident while doing so.
> In my case, I have no doubt, having been the victim of a hit & run
> while walking which nearly killed me, and from which I still suffer
> the after-effects, despite it being over 30 years ago.
> I wasn't doing anything particularly dangerous, like dodging between
> traffic lanes to cross a road - I was walking normally on the footway,
> when a driver who had apparently fallen asleep wiped me out.

> Newspapers are full of such stories.
>

> >                                          Again, I don't care about
> >the population studies when they do not reflect my personal risk
> >profile, and I'm not making public health decisions.  I make personal
> >health decisions.
>

> There is no practical way to establish what your personal risk profile
> is except by looking at the population studies.
>
>
>

> >> Do you figure (1) helmets that protect in bike crashes wouldn't protect in walking crashes?  Or (2) that despite all the data, there's somehow no risk in walking?  Or is it (3) just that even if wearing a walking helmet might be three times smarter than wearing a bike helmet, you refuse the social stigma of wearing such a funny
> looking thing?
>
> >I've never seen a walking crash -- I have trouble picturing a walking
> >crash.  I could see a pedestrian getting hit in a cross-walk, and
> >frankly, the pedestrian injuries and deaths around here are primarily
> >in the same spots,
>

> Just like cycle injuries in fact.

>
> >                   and at least in those spots, I would consider
> >wearing full racing leathers and a motorcycle helmet to cross the
> >street. In NYC, I would just use the guy next to me as a human
> >shield.
>

> Like that's really going to help against a bus.
> And yes, really - we've had one of those career off the road in the
> last week within 5 miles of where I'm sitting.

Pedestrians are killed by buses and trains in PDX with some regularity
-- and on unlighted rural roads, and some while trying to cross
notoriously buys roads. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/04/major_overnight_trimet_wreck_l.html

Like I said, there are places where I would wear full body armor to
cross the road -- or just not cross the road. My incidence of getting
hit by a bus or train or car while walking, though, is far less than
the incidence of crashing or getting hit while riding my bike. I've
never been hit as a pedestrian. I've been hit a half dozen or more
times on a bike. I've been hit by a bus, but didn't get hurt. I have
crashed on ice and pot holes in the dark and too many times to count
on a mountain or cross bike. Wearing a helmet for me is a reasonable
response to realized threats. Statistical evidence of bicycling being
more safe than walking does not hold true for me.

-- Jay Beattie.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:20:27 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bb061f9f-a404-40dc...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>

> > I guess we all have our stories to tell.
>
> We sure do. All sports abound with personal anecdotes. If you never have any experiences worthy of recount then I guess you are not deriving anywhere near the full benefit the sport has to offer.

Hmm. There is some weird part of human nature that considers the "worthy of recount" anecdotes to be the injuries or narrow escapes. My son, when he was young, loved bragging about his backyard injuries. And a few nights ago, my wife and I went out with friends for dinner, a show and drinks afterward. They got to asking us about our vacation in France, but wanted to hear more about my getting lost on my bike in Paris during a thunderstorm; or about the time we almost got locked in an underground garage. The beautiful tailwind days heading east along the Loire? Not so interesting.

To me, the "full benefit" of cycling has nothing to do with crashing. I prefer the incidents like the beautiful buck running parallel to me in the woods last week, or the Red Shouldered Hawk the flew low across a suburban lawn, then swooped up to land on a pole not 30 feet from where I'd stopped. I like the view from the top of the 1.5 mile climb east of here, and the compliment from the guy at the grocery: "It's nice to see someone ride their bike to the store." I like even the quiet hiss of my tires on smooth pavement.

Crashing? I'm happy to live without that experience.

- Frank Krygowski

[Graham]

<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:20:27 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bb061f9f-a404-40dc...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I guess we all have our stories to tell.
>
> We sure do. All sports abound with personal anecdotes. If you never have any experiences worthy of recount then I guess you are not deriving anywhere near the full benefit the sport has to offer.

>Hmm. There is some weird part of human nature that considers the "worthy of recount" anecdotes to be the injuries or narrow escapes.

My sir, you are one of the most contrary fellows I have ever had the pleasure of holding a discussion with. To quote:

One of my closest calls in recent years was on a 20+ mph downhill on a club ride. I was all tucked in, when a groundhog scampered out........

You were the one who was telling the story I was merely commenting!

> To me, the "full benefit" of cycling has nothing to do with crashing.

Be sensible. I think it is fair to assume we are not a bunch of masochists who take pleasure in crashing. Its just that some of us are perhaps prepared to accept a higher risk profile to ride in terrain and at speeds you are not accustomed to.
Does the excitement of a fast descent do nothing for you.

> I prefer the incidents like the beautiful buck running parallel to me in the woods last week,

My ride today was a 50 miler with some 2000 feet of climbing in the hills around where I live in just under three hours. There was a clear blue sky, the trees were in their full autumn colours, the rural roads we dry and virtually traffic free. Paradise! At 46mph, the top speed recorded by my bike computer, is somewhat in excess of your 20+ mph quoted above and I was not "all tucked in".

I was curious to see why our crash stats might be so different other than you possess near Papal infalability and I am a reckless hooligan. Neither of which I believe by the way.

One reason appears to be down to the speed at which we ride as I think we would agree risk increases with speed so even if we had the same bike handling skills you might be expected to remain upright when I might fall.

The other appears to be where we ride. If you start with the Wikipedia entries for the Cotswolds, Forest of Dean and Black Mountains in Wales you will get some idea of where I ride. I actually live in the Cotswolds. You however, if you are the Frank Krygowski of Youngstown Ohio, live in a totally different place. From the pictures I have seen of Ohio state it is virtually pan flat. Wikipedia has max elevation 472m, mean 260m, min 139m, Youngstown 260m. I remember commenting to my partner when we were watching a documentry recently on the Amish - I pity any cyclist who lives in place like like. If I were to restate my crash stats as to the number of times I had crashed on a flat wide open road the answer would be zero. I might even hazard a guess that if I lived in Ohio I might have kept a clean sheet all together.

I think, if you do live in Ohio, the nature of the terrain you ride in goes a long way to explain why you guys do not come off that much. To go further I would expect that the biggest risks you do face come from motorists which appear even less considerate over there than here. In that case as we are agreed that helmets offer little or no protection against cars then I can see why you might see no merit in them. All I ask is that you try and imagine yourself riding at my speeds through my country side and try and understand why I might choose to wear a helmet and why my situation, just like some other posters is not covered by your beloved national statistics. Granted you might never wish to take that beyond a thought experiment into reality!!!!

> Crashing? I'm happy to live without that experience.

Amen to that but some of us are prepared to take the risk to be able to ride at the speed we like in challenging, and might I say, beautiful terrain.

Graham.

[Dan O]

Are you sayin' it wasn't your fault?

[James]

On 11/11/12 22:20, Graham wrote:
>
> "Frank Krygowski"<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bb061f9f-a404-40dc...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

>> <sigh> Graham, you now seem to be constructing a "bicycling is
> dangerous" argument based on phantom, unrecorded injuries.
>
> As we are sighing please permit me one of my own. I am not
> constructing any argument to say "bicycling is dangerous" nor am I
> talking about phantom injuries. I am talking about all those injuries
> most keen cyclists right off to experience and whilst painful will
> never be recorded. Again I repeat both my nuance point and what I
> said below. Please do not keep trying to twist it into something it
> is not:

I agree with most of what you say, Graham.

Frank is the master of twisting your words, turning them against you and
then accusing you of being very fearful. He's been called on it many
times, but never ceases.

--
JS

[James]

On 12/11/12 02:59, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:15:05 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
>> On 11/11/12 18:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Seriously??? You've never seen anyone fall while walking?
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't recall ever having fallen and injured myself while walking,
>> and
>>
>> I've done a fair bit of walking, carrying a loaded gun and game
>> I'd
>>
>> shot, or a fishing rod.
>
> Hmm. Well "I don't recall" can cover a lot. Still, there's that
> damned data.
>
> Do you want it for your country, Australia? No, of course you don't
> - but here it is anyway:

You're right. I don't. I snipped it and didn't look at it.

There are not many cars to run over me while I walk around the paddocks
and bush, so your statistics are irrelevant - as usual.

--
JS.

[Dan O]

On Nov 11, 10:02 am, "Graham" <h2gt2g42-micenewgro...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:20:27 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

> > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bb061f9f-a404-40dc...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

>
> > > I guess we all have our stories to tell.
>
> > We sure do. All sports abound with personal anecdotes. If you never have any experiences worthy of recount then I guess you are not deriving anywhere near the full benefit the sport has to offer.
> >Hmm. There is some weird part of human nature that considers the "worthy of recount" anecdotes to be the injuries or narrow escapes.
>
> My sir, you are one of the most contrary fellows I have ever had the pleasure of holding a discussion with. To quote:
>

Got to be one of the most polite expressions of this practically
universal sentiment.

<snip>

>
> > Crashing? I'm happy to live without that experience.
>
> Amen to that but some of us are prepared to take the risk to be able to ride at the speed we like in challenging, and might I say, beautiful terrain.
>

Frank has developed and determined a notion of what kind of risk /
reward is good and appropriate for him. Nothing wrong with that.

Problem is, he has some perverse need to feel he's unquestionably
right and superior (schoolmaster / hall monitor syndrome, I guess),
that there is only one true right proper perspective (religious dogma,
I guess), that there must be something "wrong" with any other, so he
extends his notion of what is good and proper for him to everyone
eles, and proceeds with harsh derision wrapped in his wacky (and not
so intelligent as he so firmly believes) rationalizations.

[andre...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:49:12 PM UTC-7, datakoll wrote:
> where ? for Austrailia ? exist online ?
>
>
>
> EG
>
>
>

> last year Aussie LE fined
>
>
>
> 21 upper middle class jocks
>
>
>
> 23 college students
>
>
>
> 137 aboriginees
>
>
>
> 243 negroes
>
>
>
> 4 Italians
>
>
>
> 2 Finns
>
>
>
> 1 NORWEGIAN
>
>
>
> 1,386 Englishmen
>
>
>

> wikiarrest ?

Helmets protect australian heads and faces from the various species of flying tiger sharks, taipans, funnel web spiders, box jelly fish, brown and tiger snakes and all kinds of species of animals that can kill you just by looking at you.

[Dan O]

On Nov 11, 8:26 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:20:27 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

> > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bb061f9f-a404-40dc...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

>
> > > I guess we all have our stories to tell.
>
> > We sure do. All sports abound with personal anecdotes. If you never have any experiences worthy of recount then I guess you are not deriving anywhere near the full benefit the sport has to offer.
>
> Hmm. There is some weird part of human nature that considers the "worthy of recount" anecdotes to be the injuries or narrow escapes. My son, when he was young, loved bragging about his backyard injuries.
>

Personal anecdote.

> And a few nights ago, my wife and I went out with friends...

So many friends.

> ... for dinner, a show...

Review (?)

> ... and drinks afterward.

That's okay, I guess - though some would not think it "proper" (of
course, you'd think them unreasonably judgemental).

> They got to asking us about our vacation in France, but wanted to hear more about my getting lost on my bike in Paris during a thunderstorm; or about the time we almost got locked in an underground garage. The beautiful tailwind days heading east along the Loire? Not so interesting.
>

The latter is *not* interesting; it's appeal is only in being
experienced.

> To me, the "full benefit" of cycling has nothing to do with crashing. I prefer the incidents like the beautiful buck running parallel to me in the woods last week, or the Red Shouldered Hawk the flew low across a suburban lawn, then swooped up to land on a pole not 30 feet from where I'd stopped. I like the view from the top of the 1.5 mile climb east of here, and the compliment from the guy at the grocery: "It's nice to see someone ride their bike to the store." I like even the quiet hiss of my tires on smooth pavement.
>

I have consistently expressed my appreciation for every one of those
sorts of things, and that you and I are brother bicyclists. (I
imagine I am less enamored of the "compliments", but you'd better
believe I get them when people hear I ride two hours in the dark
freezing mist to get to work).

> Crashing? I'm happy to live without that experience.
>

I'm not so sure I would be (experience being what it is), though I do
try - and usually succeed - in avoiding it.

[James]

I think only Frank and maybe Phil will argue with you.

In a race many years ago I was started a minute behind scratch for a 60
km handicap on the road. It was quite wet, and going through a small
town I had to make a right turn. The road was very wet and I slowed to
what I thought was really slow, not wanting to slide. Didn't help. The
bike disappeared from under me and I found myself sliding across the
road. It didn't hurt, and barely took any skin off. I jumped right
back up and got going again.

Sometimes there's little you could have done, short of not going out at all.

--
JS.

[James]

Yep.

--
JS.

[Jay Beattie]

On Nov 11, 8:26 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:20:27 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

> > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bb061f9f-a404-40dc...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

That's all great, but if you ride in low traction environments, the
risk of crashing is a real part of bicycling -- and a risk you take to
obtain the "full benefit" of cycling. Ride today . . . very low
traction except that I was on cross tires: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fixiewrek/3047882158/
There were actually more leaves. No crashes, although a few scares
descending when I hit a hole under a pile of leaves. Riding in the
late spring snow involves low traction, but no way you're going to get
to the top of the mountain unless you run the risk of crashing on the
way down. I have crashed in snow when I took an ad hoc ride past this
sign on a beautiful late spring day. http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_skua/4234027215/
On the downhill, less snow, so it was plausibly passable on 23s.

There is a lot of gravel around here, too.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielamadeus/5822791555/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zircon100/3789368258/

My ride yesterday: http://www.flickr.com/photos/96683394@N00/580837470/in/photostream/
(actually, not that far east and it was overcast, but I like the
picture . . . so there).

-- Jay Beattie.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...
>

> >Hmm. There is some weird part of human nature that considers the "worthy of recount" anecdotes to be the injuries or narrow escapes.
>
> My sir, you are one of the most contrary fellows I have ever had the pleasure of holding a discussion with. To quote:
>
> One of my closest calls in recent years was on a 20+ mph downhill on a club ride. I was all tucked in, when a groundhog scampered out........
>
> You were the one who was telling the story I was merely commenting!

Graham, what did you find "contrary" about my observation that people enjoy telling and hearing tales of mishaps and near-mishaps? It's not an insult; it's something we all do, and that includes myself. It's human.

(I'm reading Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror_ about the 14th century. In the preface, she mentions the same tendency, and notes it's a problem for historians - that chronicles of the day from then till now read like a constant stream of tragedies. Check what's on the news tonight, for example!)

> > To me, the "full benefit" of cycling has nothing to do with crashing.
>
> Be sensible. I think it is fair to assume we are not a bunch of masochists who take pleasure in crashing. Its just that some of us are perhaps prepared to accept a higher risk profile to ride in terrain and at speeds you are not accustomed to.

Of course.

> Does the excitement of a fast descent do nothing for you.

No, I enjoy them quite a bit.

> My ride today was a 50 miler with some 2000 feet of climbing in the hills around where I live in just under three hours. There was a clear blue sky, the trees were in their full autumn colours, the rural roads we dry and virtually traffic free. Paradise! At 46mph, the top speed recorded by my bike computer, is somewhat in excess of your 20+ mph quoted above and I was not "all tucked in".

My all-time record is about 53 mph, IIRC. I was hoping to break 55, but I came up on a car with a cautious driver, and I wasn't going to pass on a blind curve. That was about 30 miles south of here. (More on that later.)

> I was curious to see why our crash stats might be so different other than you possess near Papal infalability and I am a reckless hooligan. Neither of which I believe by the way.
>
> One reason appears to be down to the speed at which we ride as I think we would agree risk increases with speed so even if we had the same bike handling skills you might be expected to remain upright when I might fall.
>
> The other appears to be where we ride. If you start with the Wikipedia entries for the Cotswolds, Forest of Dean and Black Mountains in Wales you will get some idea of where I ride. I actually live in the Cotswolds. You however, if you are the Frank Krygowski of Youngstown Ohio, live in a totally different place. From the pictures I have seen of Ohio state it is virtually pan flat. Wikipedia has max elevation 472m, mean 260m, min 139m, Youngstown 260m. I remember commenting to my partner when we were watching a documentry recently on the Amish - I pity any cyclist who lives in place like like. If I were to restate my crash stats as to the number of times I had crashed on a flat wide open road the answer would be zero. I might even hazard a guess that if I lived in Ohio I might have kept a clean sheet all together.

Regarding Ohio terrain: I live right about where the last glaciers stopped. It's really pretty wonderful for cycling. Not only do we have an amazing network of pretty & quiet roads through the country (road density falls off pretty quickly as one travels west across the U.S.) but we have a choice of terrain. If I want generally flat to rolling, I head somewhere from north to west. If I want hills, I head south or east, out of reach of the glacier plows. The further south and east, the more punishing the hills.

(Getting a little further afield, Pittsburgh PA (about 60 miles from here) has this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_Avenue I have family that lives within a couple miles of there, and have stayed with them on tour.)

Anyway, I've crossed the Appalachians and the Rockies by bike. I've ridden in Devon, England too, which I found much like the Appalachians and southeast Ohio - one flies down a short steep hill at scary speed for a few seconds, then grinds up its mate for the next five minutes, and repeats all day, or at least until one's energy gives out. Please don't imagine my life has been one long bike path cruise.

> ... All I ask is that you try and imagine yourself riding at my speeds through my country side and try and understand why I might choose to wear a helmet and why my situation, just like some other posters is not covered by your beloved national statistics. Granted you might never wish to take that beyond a thought experiment into reality!!!!

Graham, please: Wear your helmet if you like. In a discussion, I may point out that it's really very weak, and that its benefits are far from proven, but even then I'm _not_ trying to talk you out of it.

And yes, some people obviously must inhabit the farthest reach of the bell curve describing riding risk. But also obviously, _most_ people are not in that extreme tail of the bell curve. Most are in the very large middle of the curve, the part described by the average data, the thousands of miles of riding between even minor scrapes, and many millions of riding between fatalities. Is that not obvious?

(It might help to stop yourself and really answer that question before reading further. It _is_ obvious that most people are close to the very pleasant average, right? Elementary statistics and all that?)

Assuming your answer is "yes," the next question is: Would a person ever guess that from reading the breathless tales of lives saved by helmets? Unfortunately, I think not. Humans _do_ love to tell and hear about real or imagined mishaps and close calls, and love to inflate their own, both in their own minds and in their retelling. It's just a human thing. But unfortunately, those tales have polluted the cycling world, and generated (I'd guess) a couple thousand "My helmet saved my life!" tales per year in this country that hasn't seen a thousand cycling deaths for the last 30 years.

That human tendency also causes quite a few "You don't know how dangerous cycling is HERE!" tales. Which is not to say I doubt you. But I must say, I've ridden in lots of conditions and places that others have described as hellish (hilly redneck Appalachia; darkest Philadelphia, Baltimore and D.C.; Pittsburgh Friday rush hour in a thunderstorm; inner city neighborhoods my work colleagues are afraid to drive through; and yes, some damned fast descents) and not fallen, not been run over, not been mugged or shot. In fact, I've enjoyed almost all of it. (Well, not so much the thunderstorm...)

If you get a kick out of risk, fine. I am actually jealous of your ability to ride the hills you describe. For a long time, I led our club's toughest annual ride - the one with the 55 mph downhill, and plenty of uphills to match - but age and some cardiac weirdness have removed that ride from my repertoire. I still love the look of hills, but I now seek the more level roads between them.

Good luck with the sheep droppings, too. Seriously.

- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 12/11/12 13:47, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:

> And yes, some people obviously must inhabit the farthest reach of the
> bell curve describing riding risk. But also obviously, _most_ people
> are not in that extreme tail of the bell curve. Most are in the very
> large middle of the curve, the part described by the average data,
> the thousands of miles of riding between even minor scrapes, and many
> millions of riding between fatalities. Is that not obvious?

Except that your data doesn't count minor scrapes, inaccurately counts
severe injury and only reasonably accurately counts fatalities.

--
JS

[Dan O]

On Nov 11, 8:49 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:20:39

> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >On 11/11/12 19:04, Phil W Lee wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> >>> Again, I don't care about
> >>> the population studies when they do not reflect my personal risk
> >>> profile, and I'm not making public health decisions. I make personal
> >>> health decisions.
>
> >> There is no practical way to establish what your personal risk profile
> >> is except by looking at the population studies.

There is no practical way to establish what your personal risk profile

is by looking at the population studies.

IFTFY

>
> >I don't fit neatly into a population, at least not one I've found.
>

> That says more about you than you may have intended.

... and me! (Or, not enough as I intended, as it were.)

[Dan O]

On Nov 10, 11:08 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 1:54 pm, "Graham" <h2gt2g42-micenewgro...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2f2607ef-72c0-425a...@googlegroups.com...

<snip>

>
> > > I do a column for almost every monthly club newsletter. I encourage cyclists to avoid the problems that cause the crashes.
>
> > Very laudable and something we would all support. However you should not try and convince people not to wear helmets when others think they have benefit. It should be down to personal choice.

>
> I'm encouraging others to become aware of actual facts, and think
> rationally.

But statistical studies present only a very small, abstract part of
the facts that demand critical thinking for actual relevence. They
are no more than what they are, and there is much, much more to any
real understanding.

> If a person decides to wear a helmet, I do not try to
> talk them out of it.

You do, however, with ardent, dogmatic zeal, deride them - in an
apparent attempt to shame and discredit them, which can have a
discouraging effect.

> In fact, on "official" club rides, I do wear a
> helmet, just so I won't have to spend the ride arguing about the
> topic.

So *you* are the one who succumbs to peer pressure and makes your
riding appear more dangerous than it is! Then you lay that very trip
on everyone else who makes their decision independently in accord with
their values and principles! (Now we know where that comes from.)

<snip>

[Graham]

<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:07b09c37-c367-426e...@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...
>

> Graham, what did you find "contrary" about my observation that people enjoy telling and hearing tales of mishaps and near-mishaps? It's not an insult;

Perhaps its something to do with your style of argument. Set in context with some of your other responses to me where I have complained of a lack of nuance and your tendency to turn my positions into far more of an extreme than they clearly are, it did come over with a less than respectful tone. Here I am endevouring to remain objective and to judge you as I find you and not be swayed by some of the more colourful responses you seem to engender from fellow posters.

> Regarding Ohio terrain: I live right about where the last glaciers stopped. It's really pretty wonderful for cycling.

That is a relief to hear. The elevation data backed up by the parts of Ohio I have seen on film look dire from a keen cyclist's perspective.

> Please don't imagine my life has been one long bike path cruise.

Well given you have enjoyed the pleasures of cycling in our fair isles how could I.

> Wear your helmet if you like. In a discussion, I may point out that it's really very weak, and that its benefits are far from proven

This is where we differ. Firstly "very weak" is emotive and somewhat dismissive. See my response above regarding tone. So to an extent is "far from proven" in this context. I will ignore the first in the hope that you are willing to consider another view and go on to suggest that if it actually could be proven (on which I still have my doubts on a pure statistical basis) then, in circumstances where a helmet could reasonably be expected to be a benefit, the decision would come out in favour.

To my mind you appear to equate the benefits of helmets solely with preventing deaths whereas I equate them with preventing head and facial injuries which could be both painful and potentially disfiguring in what otherwise might be unremarkable crashes.

At the outset I conceded in this debate that helmets offer very little or no protection in full on collisions with motor vehicles which is where I suspect most of the deaths and serious trauma arise.

Despite your statistics I have had crashes resulting in helmet damage which would have been to my head and/or face if I had not been wearing one. With your personal history you do not have that experience. Further I conceded in an ealier post that it is rather doubtful, but again not absolutely certain, that a helmet has saved my life.

I suspect I am not that far out in the tails of the normal distribution from what actually happens out there when you move away from national death or very serious trauma injuries. Take those out of the helmet equation, and then come up with a way of collecting data on ALL cycling accidents invoving injury and then develop an algorthm to determine the outcome with and without a helmet for each accident where it could be a relevant factor and my bet is that a residual benefit in favour of helmets would remain. It is, however, only a bet as I do not believe what I have described can be developed to give any meaningful results. I like you have worked with statistics and I think I am perhaps a little more questioning in this instance when it comes to making a helmet decision.

Here is where it comes down to personal choice because unlike you I do not believe that national death or serious trauma stats are a good guide in making that choice. None of my crashes I have mentioned here, and particularly those in which I believe a helmet to have been of benefit, have been recorded. I guess that applies also to the majority of riders here who have had similar. If that is indeed the case then the database on which to base those stats is woefully incomplete.

For the average cyclist these statistical arguements and their prosecution by zealots on both sides must be a nightmare. I believe it simply boils down to the fact as to whether you believe that, given the way you use a bike, you could one day crash in such a way that a helmet could save you from painful and possibly disfiguring head and facial injuries. If the answer is no, you do not care or that it is so extremely unlikey as to not worry about then its a no brainer. However, if the answer is yes then its a bit more nuanced. For most the answer would be to wear a helmet, for others they would fall in with the third category of the don't knows. Here the decision is, do I have any valid objection to wearing a helmet that outweighs any chance whatsoever there might be of it preventing an unpleasant injury.

If asked for advice from any road cyclist (I include myself in this broad definition) I am assuming you would put your trust in your national death and serious trama statistics and say confidently that helmets offer no benefit whatsoever so there is no need to wear one. Whilst I clearly disagree, I would hope you would go on to say: if, however, you would feel more comfortable doing so then by all means go ahead, as, to be fair, you have said to me. On the other hand I would say that I believe they do offer a benefit so I choose to wear one and explain why. I would also point out that not all cyclists agreed on the matter and the decision had to be a personal one.

> I am actually jealous of your ability to ride the hills you describe.

Good luck with the sheep droppings, too. Seriously.

Thankyou. At least as cyclists we share a common enthusiasm for an activity we wish more of our fellow men and women could enjoy in safety even if we do disagree on one of the more contentious issues that surround it.

Graham.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:04:15 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:07b09c37-c367-426e...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
>
> > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
>
>

SNIPPED

> > Wear your helmet if you like. In a discussion, I may point out that it's really very weak, and that its benefits are far from proven
>
>
>
> This is where we differ. Firstly "very weak" is emotive and somewhat dismissive. See my response above regarding tone. So to an extent is "far from proven" in this context. I will ignore the first in the hope that you are willing to consider another view and go on to suggest that if it actually could be proven (on which I still have my doubts on a pure statistical basis) then, in circumstances where a helmet could reasonably be expected to be a benefit, the decision would come out in favour.
>
>
>
> To my mind you appear to equate the benefits of helmets solely with preventing deaths whereas I equate them with preventing head and facial injuries which could be both painful and potentially disfiguring in what otherwise might be unremarkable crashes.
>

SNIPPED

>
> Despite your statistics I have had crashes resulting in helmet damage which would have been to my head and/or face if I had not been wearing one. With your personal history you do not have that experience. Further I conceded in an ealier post that it is rather doubtful, but again not absolutely certain, that a helmet has saved my life.
>
>
>

SNIPPED>

>
>
> Here is where it comes down to personal choice because unlike you I do not believe that national death or serious trauma stats are a good guide in making that choice. None of my crashes I have mentioned here, and particularly those in which I believe a helmet to have been of benefit, have been recorded. I guess that applies also to the majority of riders here who have had similar. If that is indeed the case then the database on which to base those stats is woefully incomplete.
>

SNIPPED

>
> If asked for advice from any road cyclist (I include myself in this broad definition) I am assuming you would put your trust in your national death and serious trama statistics and say confidently that helmets offer no benefit whatsoever so there is no need to wear one. Whilst I clearly disagree, I would hope you would go on to say: if, however, you would feel more comfortable doing so then by all means go ahead, as, to be fair, you have said to me. On the other hand I would say that I believe they do offer a benefit so I choose to wear one and explain why. I would also point out that not all cyclists agreed on the matter and the decision had to be a personal one.
>
>

SNIPPED>
> Graham.

Graham wrote: "If asked for advice from any road cyclist (I include myself in this broad definition) I am assuming you would put your trust in your national death and serious trama statistics and say confidently that helmets offer no benefit whatsoever so there is no need to wear one."

I pretty much assume that's what would be said. After all when some time ago I posted on this newsgroup that I was glad I was wearing a helmet when I wiped out on my bicycle and slammed my head against the asphalt. I was told emphatically that a. had I not been wearing my helmet my head would not have hit the asphalt and b. that the helmet I was wearing did not protect me from injury. Once again statistics were used to strengthen those opinions.

Those who are anti-helmet seem to be totally unwilling to listen to any one who has had a crash whilst wearing a helmet. However the truth of the matter was that the helmet did prevent me from having any sort of injury and I was able to get up and continue a pleasant ride wihout the need to repair any part of my head even if that repair would have been applying gauze to a laceration.

Cheers

[frkr...@gmail.com]

Regarding the severe injury and fatality counts: If you claim the many sources of data I use are inaccurate, you really should post the accurate numbers. Otherwise, you're in the position of saying "That's wrong, but I don't know what's right." Logically, that's pretty weak!

Regarding the minor scrapes: Several studies I've cited have included minor scrapes:

Powell et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, was the one that surveyed over 5000 participants in those activities and found cyclists had the fewest injuries of all. That included _all_ participant injuries, including minor scrapes. (Just 0.9% of cyclists were injured.)

Hoffman, "Bicycle Commuter Injury Prevention", Journal of Trauma, Vol. 69, no.5, seemed actually designed to overstate bicycling's dangers. The researchers claimed that previous studies must have missed injuries by asking cyclists after the cyclists forgot about them. (!) So they set up a program to ask volunteers once per month whether they had ANY injury, no matter how tiny. They still got 6667 miles ridden between even the tiniest injuries, and 25,600 miles ridden between any injury receiving any medical attention at all, even the briefest examination.

Kaplan, "“Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User,” 1973 (a Master's thesis) surveyed over 4000 adult cyclists. Riders sought medical treatment for injury only once in 13,800 miles, or approximately once in 14 years of riding. And let's remember that most cyclists seeking medical treatment are getting it for road rash.

There are others. But the major point is, riding a bike is NOT an unusually hazardous activity, despite the protests that appear here whenever someone says so.

(I really do wonder at all the claims and implications that biking is so hazardous. Do you guys do that for all your favorite activities? If not, why pick on cycling?)

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

Many people who wear a helmet whilst bicycling do NOT think that bicycling is dangerous. The think of a helmet as a bit of extra insurance just in case something bad does happen during the ride.

I do not understand why you think that everyone who chooses to wear a helmet is crying DANGER! DANGER!

Regarding statistics. Even if there are a million miles between bicycle fatalities, some bicyclists ARE KILLED well before they have ever reached the one million miles mark. Others are seriously injured before they have accumulated one million miles.

I wonder, if helmets are so useless and if wearing one is akin to shouting DANGER! DANGER! why you wear one whilst participating in a club ride. That was a rhetorical question by the way.

Statistics be damned! When bicycling I'll wear a helmeteven if it provides just some benefit in mitigating the results of a crash or simple fall wherein my head might strike the pavement or other object. IMHO something beats nothing.

Cheers

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:04:15 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:07b09c37-c367-426e...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
>
> > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > Graham, what did you find "contrary" about my observation that people enjoy telling and hearing tales of mishaps and near-mishaps? It's not an insult;
>
> Perhaps its something to do with your style of argument. Set in context with some of your other responses to me where I have complained of a lack of nuance and your tendency to turn my positions into far more of an extreme than they clearly are, it did come over with a less than respectful tone. Here I am endevouring to remain objective and to judge you as I find you and not be swayed by some of the more colourful responses you seem to engender from fellow posters.

As I've said before, there are severe limitations in this medium. Some readers seem to construct a mental image of the "tone of voice" (so to speak) they are reading, and take offense at wording that is actually very neutral. Dan O, in particular, finds everything I write to be hostile. (Oddly, he gives a pass to anonymous posters who attack me repeatedly with language unprintable in most newspapers and illegal on network TV. Yet if I - rarely - cave in and reply in kind, Dan attacks me, never the original aggressor.)

Try pausing when you think I'm being harsh, and re-read the words calmly. See whether you might be overreacting.

> > Regarding Ohio terrain: I live right about where the last glaciers stopped. It's really pretty wonderful for cycling.
>
>
>
> That is a relief to hear. The elevation data backed up by the parts of Ohio I have seen on film look dire from a keen cyclist's perspective.
>
>
>
> > Please don't imagine my life has been one long bike path cruise.
>
>
>
> Well given you have enjoyed the pleasures of cycling in our fair isles how could I.
>
>
>
> > Wear your helmet if you like. In a discussion, I may point out that it's really very weak, and that its benefits are far from proven
>
>
>
> This is where we differ. Firstly "very weak" is emotive and somewhat dismissive. See my response above regarding tone. So to an extent is "far from proven" in this context.

OK, a specific example on language and imagined tone. I paused a long time when writing that sentence, asking myself: Should I again refer to the certification standards? (A mere 14 mph impact of a decapitated headform on a polished smooth surface, no rotational acceleration permitted nor measured, no body mass attached, etc.) Should I expand on the "far from proven"? (No discernible drop in head injuries per cyclist when entire nations mandate helmets for every cyclist; smaller drop in fatality count than pedestrians in two other nations with the highest percentage of helmet use, etc.)

I decided to go for brevity. Of course, I can cite data for the next 24 hours, but the summary must be that helmets must be weak protection, otherwise significant benefit would show up in the data that involves non-self-selected subjects. But if you don't like my habit of posting data, you may prefer reading what's said by your national organization, the CTC. Try this:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/files/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf_2.pdf

But about the "tone": All I ever thought about "weak" and "far from proven" were "I linked to data so many times, and now I need to be concise." Somehow you imagined "emotive" and "dismissive." So again, try re-reading and pretending you're in a discussion with a very calm person.

Anecdote report, for further illustration: About two months ago my wife and I and one other friend were on a bike ride. Only the friend wore a helmet. As it happened, another cyclist we all knew was driving by and stopped to talk to us - sort of. Actually, within ten seconds, he was shouting at me "AND WHERE'S YOUR FUCKING HELMET????" He was nearly raving, and the rudeness and obscenity was astonishing, and went on and on.

I've dealt with this character before. I did not rave back. I said things like "You're being rude," and "You're riding in the vehicle that kills 35,000 occupants per year, and _you_ have no helmet." BTW, he had a passenger, and the passenger was obviously astonished and horrified at his behavior.

Anyway, we parted. And the friend that was riding with us said something like "Frank, I couldn't believe how calm you were. I'd have been absolutely furious with him." Yet here, if I say "very weak," it's interpreted as somehow hostile. Go figure.

> To my mind you appear to equate the benefits of helmets solely with preventing deaths whereas I equate them with preventing head and facial injuries which could be both painful and potentially disfiguring in what otherwise might be unremarkable crashes.

Nope. Australian data looks at far more than deaths. Reported head injuries per cyclist actually rose when they entered their MHL era. The government doesn't trumpet this - it still talks about the drop in raw counts - but other researchers have done the simple division to get "per cyclist" rates.

> Here is where it comes down to personal choice because unlike you I do not believe that national death or serious trauma stats are a good guide in making that choice. None of my crashes I have mentioned here, and particularly those in which I believe a helmet to have been of benefit, have been recorded. I guess that applies also to the majority of riders here who have had similar. If that is indeed the case then the database on which to base those stats is woefully incomplete.

The claims about unrecorded instances of protection are not uncommon. I believe that some - a relative few - must be true. However, there have been attempts to detect those injuries that have been prevented. I think the most elegant is the Scuffham paper, "Trends in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use," 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1. That's the one that examined every available hospital record for cyclists in New Zealand for many years before, and a few years after, intense helmet promotion caused a big step increase in helmet wearing. The purpose was to spot the change in the _percentage_ of cyclists hospitalized due to head injuries, and therefore detect the number that had been saved. The results? Zero.

OK, enough for now. Guests just arrived. Try reading the CTC paper. At least it may convince you that I'm not alone in relying on data!

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Nov 12, 5:04 am, "Graham" <h2gt2g42-micenewgro...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:07b09c37-c367-426e...@googlegroups.com...

<snip>

>
> If asked for advice from any road cyclist (I include myself in this broad definition) I am assuming you would put your trust in your national death and serious trama statistics and say confidently that helmets offer no benefit whatsoever so there is no need to wear one. Whilst I clearly disagree, I would hope you would go on to say: if, however, you would feel more comfortable doing so then by all means go ahead, as, to be fair, you have said to me. On the other hand I would say that I believe they do offer a benefit so I choose to wear one and explain why. I would also point out that not all cyclists agreed on the matter and the decision had to be a personal one.
>

It gets worse. Frank can never say, "Nothing wrong with that", of
anyone's personal choice to wear a helmet for ordinary bicycling (in
his mind there's always something wrong with it), and is usually
unable to even leave it at , "Wear whatever you like", without
denigrating in the same breath.

<snip>

[Dan O]

On Nov 12, 8:34 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:58:30 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

> > On 12/11/12 13:47, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > And yes, some people obviously must inhabit the farthest reach of the
>
> > > bell curve describing riding risk. But also obviously, _most_ people
>
> > > are not in that extreme tail of the bell curve. Most are in the very
>
> > > large middle of the curve, the part described by the average data,
>
> > > the thousands of miles of riding between even minor scrapes, and many
>
> > > millions of riding between fatalities. Is that not obvious?
>
> > Except that your data doesn't count minor scrapes, inaccurately counts
>
> > severe injury and only reasonably accurately counts fatalities.

Not to mention the underlying riding itself. I probably do a
substantial percentage of the whole population's riding in my area
_all by myself_, and nobody is counting.

>
> Regarding the severe injury and fatality counts: If you claim the many sources of data I use are inaccurate, you really should post the accurate numbers. Otherwise, you're in the position of saying "That's wrong, but I don't know what's right." Logically, that's pretty weak!
>

But we don't say, "That's wrong"; we (at least I) say, "That doesn't
matter (or at least, isn't decisive)"; and the "accurate numbers" _do
not exist_!

> Regarding the minor scrapes: Several studies I've cited...

Blah-de-fricking-blah, blah, BLAH

>
> There are others. But the major point is, riding a bike is NOT an unusually hazardous activity, despite the protests that appear here whenever someone says so.
>
> (I really do wonder at all the claims and implications that biking is so hazardous. Do you guys do that for all your favorite activities? If not, why pick on cycling?)
>

We... Ride... Bike... ! Just how "unusually" or "so" "hazardous" can
this imply? Obviously we consider the activity acceptably safe.

From another recent thread:

> Really, guys, it's not very dangerous out there!

Who are you trying to convince? We Ride Rike!

If you're trying to convince us to communicate only a rosy image of
bicycling and sweep the hazards under the rug, who's the
propagandist? When people ask, I tell them like it is - which AFAICT
is always less dangerous than they assumed; but I won't give them a
snow job.

[Graham]

<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5cd1a8b1-246d-4c76...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:04:15 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:07b09c37-c367-426e...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
>
> > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...

Firstly let me repeat that I am making a very concious effort to do as I said and "treat you as I find you" and that is what I will continue to do. As they say, there is no smoke without fire so a little more self analysis might help to determine why you evoke this reaction in people, which as you say can be down right offensive and unnecessary. Despite our disagreements I will always endeavour to treat you politely and expect the same in return.

>Try reading the CTC paper. At least it may convince you that I'm not alone in relying on data!

It might surprise you to learn that I am a member of the CTC and that I have debated this subject on many an occasions with fellow members. I am ashamed at some of those members who are confirmed AHZs and the way they prosecute their case. On a group ride recently one of the guys was bragging at the cafe stop as to how he had been party to getting UK Cycling to distance themselves from Bradly Wiggins' comments, following his Tour win, in which he said he thought that cyclists should wear helemets. This smacks of the thought police. Surely a cyclist of the standing of Bradley Wiggins should be allowed to express his own thoughts and opinions on this matter regardless of whether you agree with them or not. After all we supposed to live in a free society.

I also have a sad tale to tell which goes to show how even the most hardened AHZs can change there minds regardless of what their organisation tells them the "data" shows. The local CTC group joins forces on a Tuesday morning with members of the local cycling club (of which I am also a member) for the "old boys" ride. We are all either retired or self employed and we all have many thousands of miles under our wheels. We normally split into two or three smaller groups and do between 50 and 60 miles according to pace preference meeting up at a cafe at roughly half way and then back home for lunch. It is noticeable that the guys who come from a competitve background tend to all wear helmets whereas a number of those who come from a touring background don't. Several of these were confirmed AHZs.

There is always the light hearted banter between us with the touring guys having a go at us about our carbon fibre steeds and our cycling gear and us about their "gas pipe" frames (I actually ride one of these in the winter!) with their "shopping bags" (saddle bags and panniers). All good fun!

Well one day, after the "Wiggins incident" on a fast descent on a good road one of the straps on one of these bags failed for whatever reason, the bag ended up in a guy's wheel and from his injuries it appears he was pitched head first into the tarmac. He does not remember anything about what happened. He was not wearing a helmet. After several months in hospital it looks as though he might never ride again and might even need continuing care. Lets hope not. The medics who treated him have said that, in their opinion, if he had been wearing a helmet his injuries are unlikely to have been anywhere near as severe and there is every likelihood that he could have been back on his bike by now.

The upshot of this is that whether or not you believe the medics or you think that these guys are behaving irrationally virtually everyone is now turning up to the rides wearing helmets. Even most of the ardent AHZs are now sporting helmets. We pretent not to notice and keep quiet out of respect for our injured friend!

On that sombre note I will sign off and perhaps we can chat more about the merits of helmets in another post after you have entertained your guests - glad to see you have your priorities right.

Graham

[James]

On 13/11/2012 3:34 AM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:58:30 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
>> On 12/11/12 13:47, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> And yes, some people obviously must inhabit the farthest reach of
>>> the
>>
>>> bell curve describing riding risk. But also obviously, _most_
>>> people
>>
>>> are not in that extreme tail of the bell curve. Most are in the
>>> very
>>
>>> large middle of the curve, the part described by the average
>>> data,
>>
>>> the thousands of miles of riding between even minor scrapes, and
>>> many
>>
>>> millions of riding between fatalities. Is that not obvious?
>>
>>
>>
>> Except that your data doesn't count minor scrapes, inaccurately
>> counts
>>
>> severe injury and only reasonably accurately counts fatalities.
>
> Regarding the severe injury and fatality counts: If you claim the
> many sources of data I use are inaccurate, you really should post the
> accurate numbers. Otherwise, you're in the position of saying "That's
> wrong, but I don't know what's right." Logically, that's pretty
> weak!

No, logically it is correct to say that severe injury statistics are not
particularly accurate, and minor injury statistics not accurate at all.
It does not weaken my position at all, only yours as you rely so
heavily on statistics for your argument.

--
JS

[James]

By saying stuff like "even purple riding shorts."

--
JS

[DirtRoadie]

On Nov 12, 12:16 pm, "Graham" <h2gt2g42-micenewgro...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5cd1a8b1-246d-4c76...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:04:15 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

> > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:07b09c37-c367-426e...@googlegroups.com...

>
> > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
>

> > > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...

Gentlemen:
With all due respect, this is rec.bicycles.tech. Note:
http://sheldonbrown.com/recbikes.html
If you must continue helmet discussion please take that elsewhere
where it is appropriate and do not cross post here.
Feel free to note where you are going, but please leave it at that.
Even private email might be better.
Nobody here is the least bit interested, nor is anyone's opinion going
to be changed.
DR

[Graham]

"DirtRoadie" <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote in message news:10c0dbf3-5539-4afc...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 12:16pm, "Graham" <h2gt2g42-micenewgro...@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5cd1a8b1-246d-4c76...@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:04:15 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:07b09c37-c367-426e...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
>
> > > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...
>

Gentlemen:
With all due respect, this is rec.bicycles.tech. Note:
http://sheldonbrown.com/recbikes.html
If you must continue helmet discussion please take that elsewhere
where it is appropriate and do not cross post here.
Feel free to note where you are going, but please leave it at that.
Even private email might be better.
Nobody here is the least bit interested, nor is anyone's opinion going
to be changed.

Point taken. Forgive me this is my first forray. If this topic has been debated here ad nauseum before, which appears could well be the case, then I can appreciate your position and I for one will take it no further here. If anyone feels strong enough to want to carry on then remove the mice from my email address and reply direct.

Graham.

[James]

Don't think it will stop Frank.

--
JS.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 2:16:21 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5cd1a8b1-246d-4c76...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:04:15 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
>
> > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:07b09c37-c367-426e...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
>
> > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:149f6b98-3662-4233...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Firstly let me repeat that I am making a very concious effort to do as I said and "treat you as I find you" and that is what I will continue to do. As they say, there is no smoke without fire so a little more self analysis might help to determine why you evoke this reaction in people, which as you say can be down right offensive and unnecessary. Despite our disagreements I will always endeavour to treat you politely and expect the same in return.

A very good idea. Can I suggest you begin by dropping the acronym "AHZ"? It's hardly neutral and diplomatic.

>
>
>
> >Try reading the CTC paper. At least it may convince you that I'm not alone in relying on data!

Let me know when you have read it. We can talk specific points using actual data, rather than trading anecdote for anecdote.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

James, you may claim severe injury statistics are not accurate. Without evidence (i.e. the _correct_ numbers) your claim has very little value. But it should be clear that the severe injury statistics are as accurate as the professionals charged with gathering them can manage.

Regarding minor injury statistics - again, people have occasionally gone to great lengths to gather and study even those. Not as frequently as the data for severe or fatal injuries, of course, because minor injuries are considered of minor importance! That should be obvious.

Still, here again are some findings from people who were determined to track them. They _still_ don't seem to make cycling sound very dangerous!

Powell et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics", Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, was the one that surveyed over 5000 participants in those activities and found cyclists had the fewest injuries of all. That included _all_ participant injuries, including minor scrapes. (Just 0.9% of cyclists were injured.)

Hoffman, "Bicycle Commuter Injury Prevention", Journal of Trauma, Vol. 69, no.5, seemed actually designed to overstate bicycling's dangers. The researchers claimed that previous studies must have missed injuries by asking cyclists after the cyclists forgot about them. (!) So they set up a program to ask volunteers once per month whether they had ANY injury, no matter how tiny. They still got 6667 miles ridden between even the tiniest injuries, and 25,600 miles ridden between any injury receiving any medical attention at all, even the briefest examination.

Kaplan, "“Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User,” 1973 (a Master's thesis) surveyed over 4000 adult cyclists. Riders sought medical treatment for injury only once in 13,800 miles, or approximately once in 14 years of riding. And let's remember that most cyclists seeking medical treatment are getting it for road rash. I can post that data again, if really necessary.

[James]

On 13/11/2012 11:40 AM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 2:16:21 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

>> Firstly let me repeat that I am making a very concious effort to do
>> as I said and "treat you as I find you" and that is what I will
>> continue to do. As they say, there is no smoke without fire so a
>> little more self analysis might help to determine why you evoke
>> this reaction in people, which as you say can be down right
>> offensive and unnecessary. Despite our disagreements I will always
>> endeavour to treat you politely and expect the same in return.
>
> A very good idea. Can I suggest you begin by dropping the acronym
> "AHZ"? It's hardly neutral and diplomatic.

Like foam hat? What about purple riding shorts?

--
JS

[frkr...@gmail.com]

James, with all due respect: I don't start helmet threads. I stayed out of the one that Jute started for nearly a week. You and I entered this one on the same day. If I post more on this topic than you, it's largely because I have more information.

Obviously, if people decide to discuss an issue I've studied seriously for many years, I'll eventually join the discussion. If nobody wants to talk about the issue, I won't talk about the issue.

(And BTW, DR's post is a bit ironic, isn't it? "Nobody is interested" yet the discussions go on. "Nobody's opinion is going to be changed," yet many have specifically said these discussions turned them into helmet skeptics. "This is rec.bicycles.tech" yet his own most recent thread began with the letters "OT".)

- Frank Krygowski

[James]

Frank, I have no doubt they are as accurate as the professional charged
with gathering them can manage. That does not strengthen your argument
that they are very accurate though.

There is no _need_ for me to provide _correct_ numbers for me to _claim_
that the numbers gathered by others are _not_ accurate.

<snipped inaccurate data>

--
JS.

[James]

On 13/11/2012 11:52 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:

> What about when something hits something else that nothing would have
> missed?
> Think truck mirror, for an example of that.
> I've had them brush through my hair a couple of times.

You seem to have had plenty of incidents of things parting your hair and
even knocking you off your bike - from behind.

You obviously don't take the lane and skulk in the gutter.

Man up and ride sensibly down the middle of the road, and stop spreading
this "Danger! Danger!" nonsense. Bicycling is safe, with or without a
helmet, the statistics _prove_ it, don't you know?

In over 25 years of cycling, I've never had something remove my wig, or
been hit from behind for that matter. It's not magic, you know. You
must be doing something wrong. Try learning to do better.

--
JS

[James]

On 13/11/2012 11:56 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> James <james.e...@gmail.com> considered Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:20:06

> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>

> That seems to be a very convenient departure from your more usual
> position, which (if I've understood it correctly) is that anything is
> better than nothing, even if you can't be certain of it's value.
>
> At least, that is what you claim to be the case for foam hats.
> Maybe you take a different approach depending on what suits your
> purpose?
>

You haven't whacked your bare head on something hard recently have you?

--
JS

[James]

Not continuing was the request.

--
JS.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 12:18:45 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> Many people who wear a helmet whilst bicycling do NOT think that bicycling is dangerous. The think of a helmet as a bit of extra insurance just in case something bad does happen during the ride.
>
> I do not understand why you think that everyone who chooses to wear a helmet is crying DANGER! DANGER!

"Sir," you're confusing issues that are separate, although related.

I understand that many people wear helmets but don't think cycling is hugely dangerous. There are many ways of thinking, and even more ways of choosing one's behavior with almost no thought. Many people just want to fit in with their peers, to dress in the same (roadie) uniform. I've even come across people who _thought_ there was a statewide mandatory helmet law, and therefore bought one when they bought their first good bike. (There is no such law here.)

But the "Danger! Danger!" [note to Dan: I'm paraphrasing.] cries do often come from people specifically pushing helmets. They also come from people pushing bike lanes, bike boxes, etc. Some of those people don't ride bikes at all. So it's a case of overlapping sets, a Venn diagram thing. However, when one shows that the risk of significant head injury from biking is lower than from other common activities, it does - or at least should - make one wonder why so much fear is raised about riding without a helmet.

> Regarding statistics. Even if there are a million miles between bicycle fatalities, some bicyclists ARE KILLED well before they have ever reached the one million miles mark. Others are seriously injured before they have accumulated one million miles.

It's not a million miles. Estimates for the U.S. vary greatly, from about six million to about 30 million miles ridden between fatalities. I think ten million miles might be reasonable.

But you don't seem to understand the concept. First, nobody ever rides ten million miles. It can't be done in one lifetime. What those data say is that almost nobody will _ever_ be killed on a bike. The "almost nobody" shows up as only 630 people in 2009, out of a county of 330 million! And unlike, say, deaths from skydiving, it's not just because there are few people participating. There is a HUGE amount of bicycling done per year, and only a tiny number of deaths - far fewer than from swimming, from walking, from descending stairs, etc.

> I wonder, if helmets are so useless and if wearing one is akin to shouting DANGER! DANGER! why you wear one whilst participating in a club ride. That was a rhetorical question by the way.

I wear it to NOT have to have these discussions on rides. That is literally the only reason.

> Statistics be damned! When bicycling I'll wear a helmeteven if it provides just some benefit in mitigating the results of a crash or simple fall wherein my head might strike the pavement or other object. IMHO something beats nothing.

That's your choice. But let me say again, if you want to say it's your choice, you're on very solid ground. You're generally allowed to wear what you want, since you (probably) don't ride in a MHL jurisdiction.

But when you start saying things about "mitigating results of a simple fall," you open yourself to questions about all the other activities that cause simple falls. Despite the hype, bicycling is not the top of that list. You probably ought to leave that out, unless you really want to discuss it.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

Foam hat, if it disparages anything with its accuracy, disparages a commercial product, not a person.

My remark about the shorts was "Wear anything you like, even purple riding shorts." One of my best cycling friends rode in pink ones for a while, even though everyone thought they looked weird. They did not disparage him as a person, only his shorts.

Can you see the difference?

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:19:09 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
>
>
> There is no _need_ for me to provide _correct_ numbers for me to _claim_
> that the numbers gathered by others are _not_ accurate.

:-) Well, that's certainly true. Anybody can _claim_ anything. It's only when one wants to be taken seriously, that one provides actual evidence.

Cheers!

- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 13/11/2012 12:46 PM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:12:25 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
>> On 13/11/2012 11:40 AM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> A very good idea. Can I suggest you begin by dropping the
>>> acronym
>>
>>> "AHZ"? It's hardly neutral and diplomatic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like foam hat? What about purple riding shorts?
>
> Foam hat, if it disparages anything with its accuracy, disparages a
> commercial product, not a person.

There are people who write stuff like "But it's a free country. You can
wear a foam hat if you like, or even purple riding shorts!", which
disparages the people to whom it is directed, not the product.

--
JS

[James]

Like "It's not a million miles. Estimates for the U.S. vary greatly,

from about six million to about 30 million miles ridden between
fatalities. I think ten million miles might be reasonable."

Yup, that shows great accuracy. You've proved just how accurate the
data is. Hell, they're only *estimates* after all - and that's for the
most accurate *fatality* data!

Well done.

Cheers!

--
JS

[datakoll]

fRANK, we go away respecting the adage 'statsistics lie'

I had an 800' driveway in the north country I packed down after snowfalls with muh 401CI Buick 6.3....despite always below 32 temps..the snowpaqck would coalesce into a subsnow sheet of flat smooooooth ice ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SPRING....whew talk abt needing a helmet...and caulks...this was pre caulk sport..

I would disney/junior frolics head over heels with muh bucket...proving walking on ice is not dangerous.

xxxxxxx

comparisons and discussion offen Australia with the US.....like Andromeda and Italy...

[DirtRoadie]

On Nov 12, 6:13 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:19:07 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
> > On 13/11/2012 9:53 AM, Graham wrote:
>

> > > "DirtRoadie" <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:10c0dbf3-5539-4afc...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Love your straw men! Identify someone _presently_ here who is a helmet
skeptic as a result of these threads.
Frank, if you would stop, helmet threads in this group would be done.
How about it?
James was right, wasn't he?
DR

[frkr...@gmail.com]

:-) To quote a guy from Australia, "Not continuing was the request." But if you want to continue discussing, I'm certainly willing.

Now, in a case like this where estimates vary, the usual approach in my branch of engineering is to go with the worst likely case; i.e. "The max load has been estimated to be between 500 pounds and 1000 pounds. Let's start our design calculations with 1000 pounds..."

We can do something similar here. We can use the worst estimate, 6 million miles ridden between fatalities, and realize that our conclusions are probably based on exaggerated risk. Unless you prefer to use the Australian estimate instead, which last I saw was about 16 million miles. Or the British one, which was even higher. (That, BTW, is another approach - to use other sources of data for additional insight, to reject outliers like the 6 million.)

What shall we compute? How many lifetimes one could expect to live before dying on a bike? The odds that an average cyclist will die on the bike? The odds that a 14 mph helmet will actually save a life, as so many claim?

I hope you're not just trying to say "Nothing can be known, all is mystery, but bicycling is very dangerous."

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 9:24:52 PM UTC-5, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> Love your straw men! Identify someone _presently_ here who is a helmet
> skeptic as a result of these threads.

A. First, Frank Krygowski. I was a helmet believer myself, before I encountered these discussions and began digging out data that others referred to. Also Phil Lee, if I recall correctly.

B. You tried to stop this thread. Why are you posting to it? Is it a case of "Let me have my say, then shut up"?

C. If you _do_ want to discuss this issue, at least use the tools that are used by science and technology: numbers, data, statistical analysis, etc.

- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 13/11/2012 1:26 PM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 9:06:06 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
>> On 13/11/2012 12:49 PM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:19:09 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> There is no _need_ for me to provide _correct_ numbers for me
>>>> to
>>
>>>> _claim_ that the numbers gathered by others are _not_
>>>> accurate.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> :-) Well, that's certainly true. Anybody can _claim_ anything.
>>
>>> It's only when one wants to be taken seriously, that one
>>> provides
>>
>>> actual evidence.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Like "It's not a million miles. Estimates for the U.S. vary
>> greatly,
>>
>> from about six million to about 30 million miles ridden between
>>
>> fatalities. I think ten million miles might be reasonable."
>>
>>
>>
>> Yup, that shows great accuracy. You've proved just how accurate
>> the
>>
>> data is. Hell, they're only *estimates* after all - and that's for
>> the
>>
>> most accurate *fatality* data!
>>
>>
>>
>> Well done.
>
> :-) To quote a guy from Australia, "Not continuing was the request."
> But if you want to continue discussing, I'm certainly willing.

That is obvious.

> We can do something similar here. We can use the worst estimate, 6
> million miles ridden between fatalities, and realize that our
> conclusions are probably based on exaggerated risk. Unless you
> prefer to use the Australian estimate instead, which last I saw was
> about 16 million miles. Or the British one, which was even higher.
> (That, BTW, is another approach - to use other sources of data for
> additional insight, to reject outliers like the 6 million.)

16,000,000 miles ridden between deaths does not mean every person can
ride 16,000,000 miles and have a 50/50 chance of dying, otherwise there
would be almost no one dead at all in the past 100 years or so.

Yet you have often ask how many million miles we (I) will likely ride in
my lifetime, as if I should by those statistics, be able to ride for
several lifetimes and not die on the road.

One in 1600 people, each riding 10,000 miles, at the rate I cover
distance, will (on average) die every 1.5 years. That seems more plausible.

That may seem rather worrying at first glance, but take some solace in
the fact that drunks, kids, inexperienced and people who do stupid
things have a much higher risk of dying and skew the data to make it
look worse than it is for us competent bike riders.

I don't expect to die on the road this lifetime, but I could be wrong.

--
JS