Extended stems
!Jones
for an adult, so I machined an extension for the goose neck... this
proved to be a poor idea! As soon as I romped on it to get across a
busy street, the extension snapped off, leading to a very hard fall
for both of us.
OK, we had our helmets on... without them, it would have been E-room
visit for sure. (Never again will I mount any bike without my
helmet!!!) It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.
So... I have an old Littlejohn BMX tandem that I have restored and
want to use as a travel bike. (I suppose I should have bought a Bike
Friday; however, I didn't.) I need a *long* goose neck stem...
preferably, one that's strong, not necessarily light weight. I need
about 8" of rise; I'm willing to pay the weight cost.
I'm thinking of using a 12" "ape hanger" bar as one possible option...
can anyone think of another way to (safely) raise the handlebars on a
small frame?
Jones
russell...@yahoo.com
Would a Nitto Technomic solve your problem? The ad copy says 2.5" of
rise but I had one and its a lot more than that.
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/stems/index.html
Or assuming you have a threaded stem on this bike. Get one of these
adapters that allow you to use threadless stems.
http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_175545_-1_200325_200276_200459
Then stack 1 or 2 of these risers on the above adapter.
http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_141838_-1_200325_200276_200460
Then put on this adjustable stem and tilt it straight up.
http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_174784_-1_200325_200276_200460
Lou Holtman
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:07:31 -0500, !Jones <f...@foo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> OK, we had our helmets on... without them, it would have been E-room
>> visit for sure. (Never again will I mount any bike without my
>> helmet!!!) It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
>> 60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.
>
Yes, people doing such dumb things should wear helmets.
Lou
SMS
Get the longest stem you can find, and combine with a stem extender.
I.e., you can buy a Nitto Technomic stem with a 10" column, or a stem
riser that adds another 8", or a Nitto Periscopa
"http://www.rivbike.com/search/run?query=stem&commit=Search#product=16-131"
"http://www.rivbike.com/search/run?query=stem&page=2#product=16-047"
Go to "http://www.ebikestop.com/search.php" and search for "quill stem
riser"
Or
"http://www.rivbike.com/search/run?query=stem&commit=Search#product=16-190"
Chalo
>
> I am building up an old, 20" tandem for touring. It's way too small
> for an adult, so I machined an extension for the goose neck... this
> proved to be a poor idea! As soon as I romped on it to get across a
> busy street, the extension snapped off, leading to a very hard fall
> for both of us.
>
> OK, we had our helmets on... without them, it would have been E-room
> visit for sure. (Never again will I mount any bike without my
> helmet!!!) It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
> 60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.
I snapped off a couple of stems and fork steerers in my day, resulting
in crashes. I wasn't wearing a helmet, and I was /totally/ killed
every time it happened-- brains dashed out and everything. This
caused a lot of needless stress for my mother. I would wear a helmet
now, except that I haven't a speck of brain left, so why bother?
> So... I have an old Littlejohn BMX tandem that I have restored and
> want to use as a travel bike. (I suppose I should have bought a Bike
> Friday; however, I didn't.) I need a *long* goose neck stem...
> preferably, one that's strong, not necessarily light weight. I need
> about 8" of rise; I'm willing to pay the weight cost.
You might get by with something like this:
http://www.bikepartsusa.com/bikeparts/item/01-134157
But that's not your strongest option. See below.
> I'm thinking of using a 12" "ape hanger" bar as one possible option...
Ape hangers are usually too wide for good ergonomics, and they are
somewhat whippy and likely to bend in a tip-over. For strength, you
need a riser bar with a crosspiece, like a BMX bar.
I have a load-carrying bike that posed the same problem you face. I
found my best option for maximum structural integrity was to use a
very stout BMX stem in combination with a Sun EZ-1 recumbent
handlebar.
http://datribean.com/chalo/images/chair1.jpg
http://datribean.com/chalo/images/chair2.jpg
That 17" tall handlebar can be ordered by any bike shop that uses J&B
as a wholesale distributor (which is to say almost any bike shop).
The bar comes in aluminum and steel versions with a 22.2mm or 25.4mm
clamp section. Your best bet is to get a steel bar with a 22.2mm
clamp diameter, and mate it with a sturdy BMX/freestyle stem that has
a stout four-bolt clamp. The leverage of such a tall handlebar is
likely to make a one- or two-bolt clamp slip when you pull on the
bars.
If possible, run the BMX stem at full insertion to minimize bending of
the stem quill. The short extension of the BMX stem is irrelevant,
because you can get all the fore-to-aft adjustment you need by tilting
the bar slightly one way or the other.
Chalo
Andre Jute
I'm sorry to hear about your fall. We don't mention helmets here
because the helmet haters start foaming at the mouth.
If you look at the picture at the top of this page:
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Trek%20Navigator%20L700%20Smover.html
you will see that I have made the handlebars much higher than on the
standard bike (shown down the page a bit). The parts for a threaded
headset/quill stem setup include a stem raiser shown top left of this
page:
http://www.bicycle-mountain-bike-cycle.co.uk/index.php/product/handlebarstems/handlebarstemspush/pushhandlebarstemsleisure/index.html
and a long (they go up to 12in/300mm) adjustable quill stem with a
short extension
http://www.bicycle-mountain-bike-cycle.co.uk/index.php/product/handlebarstems/handlebarstemspush/handlebarstemspushmtb/index.html
-- though mine came with the bike -- on top of which I fitted the
standard North Road town and country bars. It is possible to go higher
still by fitting U-bars from one of the many recumbents -- not ape
hanger bars which are generally too wide; you want about 24in max
width for a convenient utility bike.
Actually, if you know what you're doing, for an unthreaded, Ahead-set
stem, the parts can be the same, plus a locking collar. But this does
require that you drive out the star nut, and have a little practice at
how tight you should set a threadless headset. In this case the lock-
collar rests hard on the top of the headset and locks all the parts of
the headset, steerer tube (and its extension) and headset together.
and the angled expander at the bottom of the steerer-extender provides
further rigidity down the steerer tube. Since you've already had an
accident, you may want to negotiate with an LBS to give you half an
hour to assemble these parts.
However, we don't want to be alarmist. BBB, for instance, sells an
entire assembly (less the spacers which you have to buy extra) for
doing the job yet anotherer way (with threadless parts up top), and
since it is in retail shops on the racks, I assume they intend
cyclists to fit it themselves. It won't give you the height you want
but you might want to take a look anyway:
http://www.bbbparts.com/headparts_extender-bhp20.php
and
http://www.bbbparts.com/headparts_extender-bhp21.php
However, I am not overly keen on this version of the alterations you
want to perform because you now need a separate stem, whereas in the
version I suggest above (hollow stem raiser, quill stem inside it, the
lot fixed by a locking collar in place of the threadless stem) you
will probably spend less money and for practical purposes have
steering as safe and sturdy as any other option unless and until you
start bombing down hills on rough roads or in the rough.
You have to be careful ordering parts as there are two steerer sizes,
and some measurements are taken on the inside and some on the outside
(and some BMX have a rare larger size), and there are furthermore two
standards, threaded and threadless, so four possibilities altogether.
If this is news to you, start haunting Sheldon Brown's netsite;
Sheldon also shows how to use the locking collar on the steerer tube
after you remove the star nut.
In fact, unless you're already familiar with Sheldon, you should spend
time on his site for the authoritative gen and no-nonsense tips.
HTH.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
!Jones
<chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>I snapped off a couple of stems and fork steerers in my day, resulting
>in crashes. I wasn't wearing a helmet, and I was /totally/ killed
>every time it happened-- brains dashed out and everything. This
>caused a lot of needless stress for my mother. I would wear a helmet
>now, except that I haven't a speck of brain left, so why bother?
Well, yeah... I have taken out the (now two-pice) adaptor... it looks
like I just programmed too much plunge into the drill cycle; the
general idea *should* have worked. The OD of the lower half equals
the ID of the upper and I got them too close together trying to save
weight. It was turned outta 304 SS.
When those things go, it's a serious bummer!
So... a 'bent bar, huh? That's worth a thought.
Jones
!Jones
<chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://datribean.com/chalo/images/chair1.jpg
That's certainly an odd looking contraption. I'll post a picture of
the Littlejohn, if I survive the skakedown runs.
Jones
!Jones
Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm sorry to hear about your fall. We don't mention helmets here
>because the helmet haters start foaming at the mouth.
That's fine... I used to scoff, also. One of my co-workers ragged on
me until I finally started wearing one; the wife always did. We have
never fallen and have ridden tandem for decades... all it takes is
once. When that puppy snapped off, there wasn't time to do anything
except obey gravity. The wife hit her head on the pavement and
cracked the helmet; however, she is OK. I don't even want to *think*
about the alternative to not wearing one... others may do as they
please. If they value their heads as much as *I* value their heads,
it's fine with me. I'm putting *my* head in a helmet. If my children
were of an age where I had any say, they'd wear one, too; however,
they're grown.
Jones
!Jones
<f...@foo.com> wrote:
>That 17" tall handlebar can be ordered by any bike shop that uses J&B
>as a wholesale distributor (which is to say almost any bike shop).
>The bar comes in aluminum and steel versions with a 22.2mm or 25.4mm
>clamp section. Your best bet is to get a steel bar with a 22.2mm
>clamp diameter, and mate it with a sturdy BMX/freestyle stem that has
>a stout four-bolt clamp. The leverage of such a tall handlebar is
>likely to make a one- or two-bolt clamp slip when you pull on the
>bars.
My LBS (who is a Sun dealer) says that 22.2mm clamp size doesn't
exist! Wow!
Oh, well, they're not much use, IMO.
Jones
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
Yeah, if something could possibly go wrong, we have to defend against
that. Yeah, that's a good way to decide about risks. If there is the
slightest chance, especially with children, we have to act. Yeah,
that's rational.
We should use that sort of thinking about everything. Just think how
safe we'd be.
!Jones
Twelve-Point presented by JFT <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>Yeah, if something could possibly go wrong, we have to defend against
>that. Yeah, that's a good way to decide about risks. If there is the
>slightest chance, especially with children, we have to act. Yeah,
>that's rational.
>
>We should use that sort of thinking about everything. Just think how
>safe we'd be.
Actually, professionals base mitigation decisions on the probability
of the damage occurring factored with the cost of a single occurance
and the cost of mitigation.
There is also the aspect of who assumes the risk. I may risk my own
vehicle; however, I must insure yours against any error on my part and
prove that I have done so before I can get on the road. I am a good
driver; however, not a perfect one. If I fail to see your bicycle and
push you into the curb, am I liable? Of course I am!
Now, suppose (hopefully not) you took a spill and suffered a head
injury; however, you were not wearing a helmet... am I liable for your
head injury?
If you say "no", then I have nothing further to say... go in peace.
OTOH, if I am liable for your head injuries, then it's reasonable for
me to ask you to mitigate because *I* hold the risk. The same is true
for seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws; they're based on
liability, not that anyone GAF about your head one way or the other.
Jones
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
>The same is true
>for seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws; they're based on
>liability, not that anyone GAF about your head one way or the other.
What?
!Jones
Twelve-Point presented by JFT <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
GAF = "gives a f**k" Pardon my language, please; I wasn't trying to
be offensive.
Jones
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Seat Belts and helmets are not in the same category of proven
usefulness. For years, as a youth I recall safety glass windshields
with star-burst fractures with blood on cars whose passenger
compartment was essentially undamaged. For some of which accident
reports in newspapers listed fatalities. With seat belts, these do
not occur anymore.
I had the experience of being a front seat passenger in a car that
made a solid rear-end collision. The people in the rear seats, who
had not fastened their seat belts, came close to striking the
windshield over me and the driver but were stuck above us against the
roof. Meanwhile, I felt as though I were watching a video of the
whole thing, so little was the effect on me with fastened seat belt.
I also witnessed the recovery of a car that went off local HWY9 into
Oil Creek ravine, (about a mile to the west of Saratoga Gap), down
about 100 yards jammed between fir trees. None of the four occupants,
who were wearing seat belts, required hospital attention, while the car
was a total loss and helicopters, that had been summoned, had no
passengers after the car had been hoisted back to the road, and doors
forced open to extract passengers and driver.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have such a strikingly convincing
experience, from which I believe, one would never again question the
value of seat belts. Your points seem so distant from reality I can't
imagine you have any practical observations or experiences concerning
seat belts.
Jobst Brandt
!Jones
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
Well, I'm not following your point; I wasn't arguing seatbelts, I
don't think. I'm not even arguing helmets. If you don't want to
fasten your seatbelt, then, in a perfect world, that would be your own
business and none of mine. I support seatbelt and helmet laws *only*
because these reduce my potential liability... I do not place any
other particular value on your head and really don't care what you do
so long as I don't pay for it.
Jones
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
My point is that your attitude toward seat belts and your fellow man
is so much of:
"I don't care how badly others are injured, it's only liability that
I care about."
As you say, "I really don't care what you do so long as I don't pay
for it."
This may be a lot of bluff, but I believe you will get along better in
life when you show a bit of compassion for your fellow man. This
subject came up about encountering an injured or disabled person and
what one's actions should be.
Jobst Brandt
!Jones
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>My point is that your attitude toward seat belts and your fellow man
>is so much of:
>
>"I don't care how badly others are injured, it's only liability that
>I care about."
>
>As you say, "I really don't care what you do so long as I don't pay
>for it."
>
>This may be a lot of bluff, but I believe you will get along better in
>life when you show a bit of compassion for your fellow man. This
>subject came up about encountering an injured or disabled person and
>what one's actions should be.
Oh, I'm so full of compassion for my fellow man that I'd make you
puke!
My attitude toward seat belts (and helmets) and my fellow man is so
much of: "I'm not going to tell you how to live your life and what's
good for you." *I* choose to wear a helmet... I'm not preaching to
you.
Now, in the US, we typically tend to duck responsibility for our own
actions and decisions. If I choose not to provide myself and family
with health insurance, the hospital must treat me, anyway, or I sue
them. With this attitude dominate, now, the other guy's safety
equipment becomes my business because I hold the liability...
vicariously, through the welfare state.
Tell me, would you find me more compassionate if I tried to legislate
everyone into helmets?
Jones
someone
> I am building up an old, 20" tandem for touring. It's way too small
> for an adult, so I machined an extension for the goose neck... this
> proved to be a poor idea! As soon as I romped on it to get across a
> busy street, the extension snapped off, leading to a very hard fall
> for both of us.
>
> OK, we had our helmets on... without them, it would have been E-room
> visit for sure. (Never again will I mount any bike without my
> helmet!!!) It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
> 60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.
>
Don't forget knee pads, shin pads, elbow pads, kidney protectots,
ankle guards a seat belt and an air bag. Using improperly sized bikes
and poorly made components will result in a higher accident
frequency.
ps and protective gloves.
raamman
> Jones
Very interesting viewpoint... liability or rights and freedoms ?
!Jones
I agree that you have extracted the issue and reduced it to a single
question. I do not have an answer for you, I'm afraid. *I* tend to
assert rights and freedom to choose; however, this comes at the cost
of not being able to hold me liable for choices you make... that's
where *I* come into the discussion. You're free to disagree, of
course.
Jones
!Jones
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>Don't forget knee pads, shin pads, elbow pads, kidney protectots,
>ankle guards a seat belt and an air bag. Using improperly sized bikes
>and poorly made components will result in a higher accident
>frequency.
Well, yes... obviously, the component that failed so spectacularly was
an issue. Since I machined it, I fear that I have no one to sue
besides myself.
Now, *there* is a thought! If I sue myself and win, then anything I
get as actual damages is non-taxable... OTOH, I can deduct any sum I'm
ordered to pay!!!
Hummm... I see some possibilities here! I think I'll sue myself...
it's better than jerking off, IMO. I'm going to ask for 50K... what
do you think? If I only get 25K from the incompetent moron, then I'm
about $1,400 ahead on tax minus court costs.
Jones
someone
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:52:31 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech someone
>
I was thinking that manufacturers would encourage helmet law because
any injury caused by faulty component where tort followed would mean
an award would be reduced because the rider failed to obey the law. I
think the "always wear a helmet" is becoming standard manufacturer
instruction to dissuade compensatory claims from individuals who are
injured through faulty vehicles. As long as you consider the bike as
a vehicle and not a plaything then you should appreciate the liability
for which a manufacturer has to cover.
Brian Huntley
> My attitude toward seat belts (and helmets) and my fellow man is so
> much of: "I'm not going to tell you how to live your life and what's
> good for you." *I* choose to wear a helmet... I'm not preaching to
> you.
Would you make an exception to your stand for people 'in control' of a
motor vehicle - ie drivers - who are more able to remainin control if
they're well restrained behind the wheel?
!Jones
Well, that's a good point and one that should be raised. Let me be
clear, I tend to favor seatbelt and helmet laws... sort of. I also
believe them to be a governmental intrusion; however, weighing the
pros and cons, I find a net positive.
So, my position is: I won't preach; however, I have no problem if
you're fined for not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt.
Methinks they should go together... we shouldn't make cyclists wear
helmets unless we make drivers buckle up and visa versa.
Jones... who is just brimming with compassion for his fellow man!
!Jones
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>I was thinking that manufacturers would encourage helmet law because
>any injury caused by faulty component where tort followed would mean
>an award would be reduced because the rider failed to obey the law. I
>think the "always wear a helmet" is becoming standard manufacturer
>instruction to dissuade compensatory claims from individuals who are
>injured through faulty vehicles. As long as you consider the bike as
>a vehicle and not a plaything then you should appreciate the liability
>for which a manufacturer has to cover.
Oh, absolutely! That's what *I* would do: I'd say, "Always wear a
helmet," then, when my cheap crap fails and you're a veggie shitting
the bed in a nursing home for the next few decades, I'll say, "Hey! I
TOLD you to wear a helmet; if you don't, that's your right; however,
don't expect *ME* to take responsibility for your decisions!"
People who wear helmets have fewer head trauma events; that's a proven
fact. Now, what you *do* about it goes to what's called an "informed,
adult decision."
And I'm getting bored with this silly topic.
Jones
Michael Press
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
Wearing a typical modern three point passenger sedan harness
as the driver and sole occupant I once finished upside down
in a normal driver's position: hands on wheel, feet on deck,
seat in seat, head separated from the ceiling. That harness
saved me a bit of trouble.
--
Michael Press
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> I have a load-carrying bike that posed the same problem you face. I
> found my best option for maximum structural integrity was to use a
> very stout BMX stem in combination with a Sun EZ-1 recumbent
> handlebar.
>
> http://datribean.com/chalo/images/chair1.jpg
> http://datribean.com/chalo/images/chair2.jpg
>
> That 17" tall handlebar can be ordered by any bike shop that uses J&B
> as a wholesale distributor (which is to say almost any bike shop).
> The bar comes in aluminum and steel versions with a 22.2mm or 25.4mm
> clamp section. Your best bet is to get a steel bar with a 22.2mm
> clamp diameter, and mate it with a sturdy BMX/freestyle stem that has
> a stout four-bolt clamp. The leverage of such a tall handlebar is
> likely to make a one- or two-bolt clamp slip when you pull on the
The Sun EZ-1 bars must be over-built for their original intent if they
are strong enough for this use, since normally all pulling on the bars
does while riding a recumbent is make the bike handle poorly.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> People who wear helmets have fewer head trauma events; that's a proven
No it is not.
someone
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:28:58 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech someone
>
Thoust shall not butt a tube, a spoke nor ground, for it hurts thy
bonce. Puffed cereal helmets will negate impact force upon thy
cranium a little so as to lessen a heavy bruise and stonker of a
headache to something lesser. A collision into a concrete lamp post
at 20mph head first will kill you and also ruin a pretty helmet should
you be wearing it. The incident of which you describe is precisely
what bicycle helmets are currently designed for. Without development
of a new constructional technique the bicycle helmet will remain of
little advantage to an experienced cyclist (one who has already butted
the ground). One incident is usually enough to make the rider think
(while riding) before he cannot, in future. Wearing of a helmet
reducing the soreness may make the rider more likely to do the same
foolish thing again. Not wearing a helmet then is more dangerous than
if he simply had never worn a helmet. Like greasing crank spindles,
once you start this you should continue.
someone
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Exclamation Point Jones wrote:
> > [...]
> > People who wear helmets have fewer head trauma events; that's a proven
> > fact.[...]
>
> No it is not.
oops, I was avoiding that one.
Chalo
>
> Chalo Colina wrote:
> > [...]
> > I have a load-carrying bike that posed the same problem you face. I
> > found my best option for maximum structural integrity was to use a
> > very stout BMX stem in combination with a Sun EZ-1 recumbent
> > handlebar.
> >
> >http://datribean.com/chalo/images/chair1.jpg
> >http://datribean.com/chalo/images/chair2.jpg
> > The leverage of such a tall handlebar is
> > likely to make a one- or two-bolt clamp slip when you pull on the
> > bars.[...]
>
> The Sun EZ-1 bars must be over-built for their original intent if they
> are strong enough for this use, since normally all pulling on the bars
> does while riding a recumbent is make the bike handle poorly.
You are surely correct, but I suspect that the 'bent application is
why they were confident enough to drill aluminum bars for rivnut
inserts (for bottle cages).
I think that the bars were built to survive falls, not just the puny
steering inputs of 'bent riding.
Chalo
Chalo
>
> !Jones wrote:
> >
> > OK, we had our helmets on... without them, it would have been E-room
> > visit for sure. (Never again will I mount any bike without my
> > helmet!!!) It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
> > 60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.
>
> because the helmet haters start foaming at the mouth.
This is the helmet that I imagine you wearing, Andre:
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Cliveden2006/PithHelmet-large.jpg
Chalo
Dan O
> I am building up an old, 20" tandem for touring. It's way too small
> for an adult, so I machined an extension for the goose neck... this
> proved to be a poor idea! As soon as I romped on it to get across a
> busy street, the extension snapped off, leading to a very hard fall
> for both of us.
>
> visit for sure. (Never again will I mount any bike without my
> helmet!!!) It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
> 60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.
>
> want to use as a travel bike. (I suppose I should have bought a Bike
> Friday; however, I didn't.) I need a *long* goose neck stem...
> preferably, one that's strong, not necessarily light weight. I need
> about 8" of rise; I'm willing to pay the weight cost.
>
> I'm thinking of using a 12" "ape hanger" bar as one possible option...
> can anyone think of another way to (safely) raise the handlebars on a
> small frame?
>
Tom Sherman °_°
> lacerations. In addition, if you strike a hard object while wearing a
> helmet, the force will be deflected to a larger area, thereby reducing
> the impact in the specific impact area. In a severe enough impact,
> the energy may be transmitted to the spine and the helmet will not
> reduce the injury in that area. Those points are not arguable, they
> are simple facts.
> [...]
As are the simple facts that the greater effective head size with the
foam bicycle hat will increase the frequency of impacts to the head, and
increase rotational forces on the head during any impact.
someone
I fallen and crashed innumerable times but only crowned myself once
since the age of 16, when I jumped my racer with both hands over the
brake levers. I landed with a tight grip and nutted the road. I was
doing about 12mph and it hurt a lot. I have since kept my hands away
from the brake levers unless I intend to brake immediately, or there
is a situation developing which will require emergency evasive action
considering present course and speed of other vehicles.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
>My head will be moving in one
>direction towards the object it's about to impact.
Really? I'd think that in most cycling accidents the head impacts
diagonally on some object, such as the ground. So there would be
componnets of both head-on and glancing impacts, the latter helping
turn the head. And a larger "head size" would increase those turning
forces.
!Jones
�_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>> People who wear helmets have fewer head trauma events; that's a proven
>> fact.[...]
>
>No it is not.
Well, it has never been proven that helmets *cause* fewer instances of
head trauma for the same reason that it has never been proven that
smoking *causes* health problems. Before you can say that, your study
must have operational control over the independent variable... i.e.,
you take a population of non-smokers and make half of them start
smoking heavily. Of course, you'd never get it by your institution's
ethical review committee, so it will always remain unproven.
And you will always have a few who will argue that it has never been
*proven* that smoking causes health degradation; further,
theoretically and statistically, they're technically correct.
On the other hand, you can always find some moron who will argue
anything... but, not with me because *I* do argue something that's as
obvious as gravity with morons.
But... have a great day!!!
Jones
!Jones
- <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
>Yes, it is a fact; Wearing a helmet is guaranteed to reduce given
>lacerations.
Well, actually, based on the studies we have, you simply can't say
that. The strongest statement you can make that is actually supported
by scientific evidence is that a high, statistically significant
(P<=0.005 on a one tailed test), positive correlation exists between
populations who wear helmets and populations who experience a
reduction in certain head trauma.
Helmets might cause fewer instances of head trauma.
Reduced head trauma might cause people to wear helmets.
Both helmet use *and* decreased head trauma might be caused by an
unknown variable.
It could be some interplay of all three of the above.
Scientifically, that's all you can say.
Too bad that common sense is never applied to it, huh? That wouldn't
be scientific, though.
Jones
!Jones
�_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>As are the simple facts that the greater effective head size with the
>foam bicycle hat will increase the frequency of impacts to the head, and
>increase rotational forces on the head during any impact.
OK, I think you're referring to:
Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of
Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report, Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V.
and Thom, D.R., Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California 90007, Contract No. DOT
HS-5-01160, January 1981
This 1981 study (known as the "Hurt Report") is pretty much the bible
of helmet studies. Essentially, it's a motorcycle study; however, its
findings can (within reason) be applied to all sporting helmets,
particularly bicycle helmets.
This was the primary source document for that particular point...
then, one page later, they refer to that point and specifically
conclude: "[T]he use of the safety helmet is the single critical
factor in the prevention or reduction of head injury..." (Hurt, 1981,
Pg 67)
That study is, by far and away, the most frequently cited document in
the literature. Google "Hurt Report" and you'll get lots of
information.
For a fairly good study of bicycle-specific helmets, see:
A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets,
Thompson, Rivara & Thompson. New England Journal of Medicine 1989, Vol
320 No 21 p1361-7
The Thompson study, though, has some serious design issues...
specifically, the authors claim helmets *cause* an 85% reduction in
head injury and the study's design does not support such a claim.
Jones
!Jones
<chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is the helmet that I imagine you wearing, Andre:
I've got one of those!
Jones
Tom Sherman °_°
presented by the biased Thompson, Rivara, Thompson team.
Bill Sornson
One of what?
Bill "why'd you delete the link?" S.
carl...@comcast.net
<stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
>Here's a photo of Andre, in helmet, ready to ride his girl's bike:
>http://thefedorachronicles.com/vintagethreads/pith/indian-pith-helmet.jpg
Dear SJM,
Frank Lenz, round-the-world attempt, India, 1895, Victor
front-half-heart suspension pneumatic:
http://i10.tinypic.com/5ywikhu.jpg
Other pith-helmet photos and illustrations of Lenz in the article,
before he was murdered in Armenia:
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_26/outXXVI04/outXXVI04l.pdf
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Tom Sherman °_°
NOT delete it.
Sorni is STILL having problems figuring out how threaded newsgroups work.
!Jones
Tom, you're awesome! Will you move to Iowa and marry me?
As I said: Thompson, et. al. has some serious problems. IMO, taking
shots at their conclusions is like shooting at a whale on a beach
chained to a tree... any freshman statistics student ought to be able
to criticize it effectively in that the basic design of the research
does not support the findings. In some areas, it's a fairly good
study... their method is sound if you ignore the issue that they start
with two, possibly different, sets where the control group and the
treatment group have, essentially, chosen themselves. When you have
that condition, all you can say is that correlation exists.
Besides, Thompson, et. al. cites the Hurt study extensively and this
is the one that directly addresses your point of increased "head unit"
mass and diameter and concludes: "[T]he use of the safety helmet is
the single critical factor in the prevention or reduction of head
injury..." (Hurt, 1981, Pg 67) Hurt (1981), is called the primary
source document; literally thousands of scientific papers and
legislative bodies have cited it.
There's your target, Tom... you demolish *that* one (Hurt) and I'll
say you've accomplished something!
Jones
!Jones
Dunno... I wasn't replying to it, I suppose. It's in the first
message-ID in the "References" header, but, not everyone knows that.
Here you go:
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Cliveden2006/PithHelmet-large.jpg
Jones
someone
<stillnoEmail...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0500, Tom Sherman °_°
>
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >As are the simple facts that the greater effective head size with the
> >foam bicycle hat will increase the frequency of impacts to the head, and
> >increase rotational forces on the head during any impact.
>
> preferable to possible rotation and no crushing, then your point on
> rotation has merit. I think you're making a poor choice.
>
> As for "greater effective head size"? My head will be moving in one
> direction towards the object it's about to impact. I think I'd prefer
> to have it impact the object with a 1" plastic / styro buffer instead
> of directly with my skin. But, regardless, if they buffer isn't there,
> it's still going to impact the object. Perhaps there's a 1 out of 10
> incident where the 1" of clearance will help me miss a signpost or a
> fender - it isn't going to help me miss the ground.
On a good road surface in the dry you have front wheel slipout due to
an unavoidable banana peel. 1/2 second later your upper arm hits the
road and your head tips towards the road as well. You slide along the
road and after 5 seconds jump to your feet so as not to get squished.
1/2 hour later you realise what pain your arm is in and decide you
must clean out the sore. If you had been wearing a helmet the helmet
would have contacted the road and rotated your head causing violent
twisting of your neck. What was a simple fall is now a "helmet saved
my life" story because you have to wear a brace for six weeks. Just
think of the trauma had you not been wearing a helmet.
RonSonic
>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman
>�_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
>>As are the simple facts that the greater effective head size with the
>>foam bicycle hat will increase the frequency of impacts to the head, and
>>increase rotational forces on the head during any impact.
>
>OK, I think you're referring to:
Just an anecdote, sure. But on the relatively mild cross country trails I
frequent we've had one fatality in recent years. Nobody was there to witness it.
This very experienced rider was found dead in the woods with a broken neck.
Yes he was wearing a helmet.
I often ride those trails without a helmet as there's nothing much to hit your
head on.
Tom Sherman °_°
foam hats have a significant benefit.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jones,
Yes, there are "some serious design issues" in a study whose data
shows that the group wearing helmets had 70% fewer leg injuries.
No, T-R-T is not a "fairly good study" of anything--except how sincere
people with degrees in medicine and public health can embarrass
themselves with small case-control studies that have "serious design
issues."
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > !Jones wrote:
>
> > > OK, we had our helmets on... without them, it would have been E-room
> > > visit for sure. (Never again will I mount any bike without my
> > > helmet!!!) It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
> > > 60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.
>
> > I'm sorry to hear about your fall. We don't mention helmets here
> > because the helmet haters start foaming at the mouth.
>
>
>
> Chalo
Gee, I have a hat like that, used for playing polo in hot countries.
That fellow wearing it even looks like some of my Scottish relatives.
But I don't wear it any more. Here I am, hatless (a member of the
camera crew is holding my straw hat out of shot), renewing my Articles
of Faith (1):
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/andre_jute_kissing_the_blarney_stone.jpg
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
(1) Born-again-writer? LOL. Only the Stone knows...
Andre Jute
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:43:53 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Chalo
>
> >This is the helmet that I imagine you wearing, Andre:
>
> I've got one of those!
>
> Jones
Me too. I used to wear it to play polo in hot places until it was
banned as dangerous to the other players. Bloody nanny-state taking
over everywhere, even in a game that used to be played with severed
heads. If I could figure out a way to put some foam inside it without
wrecking it, I'd turn it into a bicycle helmet.
Andre Jute
"The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be
protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo
Ricart Medina
"And from being parboiled by the heat of the sun." -- Andre Jute
Chalo
>
> !Jones wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >This is the helmet that I imagine you wearing, Andre:
> >
> > I've got one of those!
>
> banned as dangerous to the other players. Bloody nanny-state taking
> over everywhere, even in a game that used to be played with severed
> heads. If I could figure out a way to put some foam inside it without
> wrecking it, I'd turn it into a bicycle helmet.
Section (IV.) Chapter (6) Article (iii) Part (f), International
Uniform Cycle Polo Code:
"Any severed head used in tournament or official exhibition play must
be fitted with a certified helmet as defined in Sec. IV, Chap. 5, Art.
vi, Part c."
Chalo
AMuzi
It's hard to work hyperbole into polo:
"Animal heads have been used in the past as well as the
severed heads of the enemies of Genghis Khan"
from:
http://www.pilotguides.com/destination_guide/asia/pakistan/polo.php
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Andre Jute
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:36:55 -0400, Still Just Me -
>
>
>
> <stillnoEmail...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:43:53 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
> ><chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Andre Jute wrote:
>
> >>> !Jones wrote:
>
> >>> > OK, we had our helmets on... without them, it would have been E-room
> >>> > visit for sure. (Never again will I mount any bike without my
> >>> > helmet!!!) It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
> >>> > 60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.
>
> >>> I'm sorry to hear about your fall. We don't mention helmets here
> >>> because the helmet haters start foaming at the mouth.
>
> >>This is the helmet that I imagine you wearing, Andre:
>
> >>http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Cliveden2006/PithHelmet-large.jpg
>
> >>Chalo
>
> >Here's a photo of Andre, in helmet, ready to ride his girl's bike:
>
> Dear SJM,
>
> Frank Lenz, round-the-world attempt, India, 1895, Victor
> front-half-heart suspension pneumatic:
> http://i10.tinypic.com/5ywikhu.jpg
>
> Other pith-helmet photos and illustrations of Lenz in the article,
> before he was murdered in Armenia:
No doubt by some Armenian Still Just Dumb for being different to the
local yokels.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_26/outXXVI0...
I dunno if Lenz started out skinny, but all that cycling surely fined
him down.
Andre Jute
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
("Saki")(1870-1916)
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
!Jones
Do you mean one that concludes: "Bicycle helmets cause fewer
injuries"??? Nevah hoppon, GI! In order to do that, I'd have to form
a hypothesis that failure to wear a helmet will result in injury...
thus, to test it, I would have to place my subjects in a situation
where I would deliberately increase their risk of injury if my
hypothesis is correct and no ethical review committee would approve
it.
You will never see such a study. For similar reasons, you'll never
see a study on smoking that shows it causes lung illness; you'll never
see a study that shows firing bullets into your brain causes death,
either.
The 1981 "Hurt Report" is the best we have. That's a "correlational
study"... you're asking for an "experimental study" and that's flatly
impossible under current law.
Do you think that smoking causes health problems?
Jones
!Jones
<rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>I often ride those trails without a helmet as there's nothing much to hit your
>head on.
Yeah, well... if you want a sermon, you're asking the wrong person.
*I* wear a helmet. Assuming you're of the age of consent, you make
your own decisions.
Jones
Andre Jute
Heh-heh. I've seen so much ridiculous rubbish from so many blazers in
so many sports (anyone have a good word for our own beloved UCI?), I
just accepted that Chalo was quoting a real rule -- it took me at
least several seconds to do a double take and say, "Gee, shit, the
polo blazers are largely selfmade rich men. They can't be that
stupid."
Polo is an entirely hyperbolic game, a fabulous substitute for war.
Andre Jute
It's a sure sign of senility to become nostalgic about violent sports
involving horses, animals even more stupid than cats
!Jones
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>No, T-R-T is not a "fairly good study" of anything--except how sincere
>people with degrees in medicine and public health can embarrass
>themselves with small case-control studies that have "serious design
>issues."
I would call it a "correlational study" where the research begins with
pre-selected groups and post-facto data. Actually, the size of their
data set was never an issue; before I can establish causality, the
independent variable (in this case: wearing a helmet) must be under
operational control before I begin data collection.
If you will let me start with existing data, I'll end up proving that
roosters crowing cause sunrise. It doesn't matter how much data I
have.
Had the Thompson study concluded that, as helmet use increases, head
injuries decrease in frequency and severity, then, I believe, the
authors could have supported that. Their mortal sin was to use the
term "cause"... any competent researcher should know to avoid that
term if all he or she has is post-facto data or groups that already
exist. Thompson et. al. had both problems!
Jones
Tom Sherman °_°
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
The right to arm bears does not make armed bears right.- Anon.
!Jones
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>!Jones <f...@foo.com> considered Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:57:13 -0500 the
>perfect time to write:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:12:41 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Still Just Me
>>- <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, it is a fact; Wearing a helmet is guaranteed to reduce given
>>>lacerations.
>>
>>Well, actually, based on the studies we have, you simply can't say
>>that. The strongest statement you can make that is actually supported
>>by scientific evidence is that a high, statistically significant
>>(P<=0.005 on a one tailed test), positive correlation exists between
>>populations who wear helmets and populations who experience a
>>reduction in certain head trauma.
>>
>>Helmets might cause fewer instances of head trauma.
>>Reduced head trauma might cause people to wear helmets.
>>Both helmet use *and* decreased head trauma might be caused by an
>>unknown variable.
>>It could be some interplay of all three of the above.
>>
>>Scientifically, that's all you can say.
>>
>>Too bad that common sense is never applied to it, huh? That wouldn't
>>be scientific, though.
>>
>>Jones
>
>It seems fairly likely that people who are more than averagely risk
>averse will tend to both wear helmets and avoid more dangerous aspects
>of cycling.
>This would explain why the wearing of helmets can be linked to lower
>rates of limb injury.
That's a perfectly valid interpretation of existing data... as are
others.
Here's my personal favorite: "changes to gun laws cause a reduction in
crime": you'll see quite a few of these; Lott, for example.
Historically, the crime rate is cyclical, it goes up and down like the
tide over a period of about 12 years (or so.) When the crime rate is
low, societies tend not to change their gun laws; as it reaches its
high point, people demand action. Thus, the gun laws will change...
if they're Draconian, they'll pass "right to carry"; if they're lax,
they'll ban handguns... whatever.
Well, the crime rate hits its max and begins a predictable downward
trend... and the proponents of the change all thump their chests and
write it up as a "study".
I say that it's far more likely that the crime rate drives changes to
gun laws than visa versa.
I don't know what that has to do with bicycles, so flame my ass, I
suppose.
Jones
!Jones
Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Me too. I used to wear it to play polo in hot places until it was
>banned as dangerous to the other players. Bloody nanny-state taking
>over everywhere, even in a game that used to be played with severed
>heads. If I could figure out a way to put some foam inside it without
>wrecking it, I'd turn it into a bicycle helmet.
I prefer the flatter "elephant hunter" version for better circulation.
The reason I like that style is I live in a place of very high, nearly
constant wind... it's great for wind surfing but bad for loose hats.
Jones
!Jones
<chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Section (IV.) Chapter (6) Article (iii) Part (f), International
>Uniform Cycle Polo Code:
>
>"Any severed head used in tournament or official exhibition play must
>be fitted with a certified helmet as defined in Sec. IV, Chap. 5, Art.
>vi, Part c."
ESAD!!!!!
Troll!
Brian Huntley
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:36:55 -0400, Still Just Me -
>
>
>
> <stillnoEmail...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:43:53 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
> >>> > visit for sure. (Never again will I mount any bike without my
> >>> > helmet!!!) It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about
> >>> > 60 years old, that's the best one hopes for.
>
> >>> I'm sorry to hear about your fall. We don't mention helmets here
> >>> because the helmet haters start foaming at the mouth.
>
>
>
> >>Chalo
>
> >Here's a photo of Andre, in helmet, ready to ride his girl's bike:
> >http://thefedorachronicles.com/vintagethreads/pith/indian-pith-helmet...
>
> Dear SJM,
>
> Frank Lenz, round-the-world attempt, India, 1895, Victor
> front-half-heart suspension pneumatic:
> http://i10.tinypic.com/5ywikhu.jpg
>
> Other pith-helmet photos and illustrations of Lenz in the article,
> before he was murdered in Armenia:
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Joff Summerfield recently wore a pith helmet on his around-the-world
ride (journal and photos here: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/joff1)
completed last November.
Since he was on a penny-farthing, the helmet wasn't all that strange
looking by comparison.
!Jones
�_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>Look up what a whole population study is.
It's simply a study wherein the results are not intended to be
extrapolated. The conclusions apply *only* to the participants. For
example: I was involved in a "whole population study" of water usage
in my county; it included all residential customers. The study gave
the water providers valuable and highly accurate information about
water consumption patterns in *THIS* county (which is all they
wanted,) but nothing whatsoever about your county... assuming, of
course, that you and I live in different counties.
If I go out, grab ten people off the street, and study them, that's a
"whole population study". WRT those ten people, it's highly reliable.
Some people think it means that every human being is included, which
is nonsense.
They tend to be quite expensive on large populations and of limited
value except to the population being studied. If I'm not in the group
being studied, then it doesn't apply to me. OTOH, the statistics
become much easier... you don't have to show that your sample
population (p) represents the larger population (P) and, most of the
time, that is the hardest part. (Didn't you just hammer Thompson on
that very issue?)
Jones
Tom Sherman °_°
The Eat Shit and Die comment is out of line.
Tom Sherman °_°
Try the whole population studies of cyclists in places like Australia
and New Zealand as examples.
Chalo
>
> Exclamation Point Jones wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> >>
> >> Section (IV.) Chapter (6) Article (iii) Part (f), International
> >> Uniform Cycle Polo Code:
> >>
> >> "Any severed head used in tournament or official exhibition play must
> >> be fitted with a certified helmet as defined in Sec. IV, Chap. 5, Art.
> >> vi, Part c."
> >
> > ESAD!!!!!
> >
> > Troll!
>
> Chalo is hardly a troll on RBT.
>
> The Eat Shit and Die comment is out of line.
Hey, I have my jests; not-Jones can have his.
Chalo
!Jones
�_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>Exclamation Point Jones wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:10:58 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Chalo
>> <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Section (IV.) Chapter (6) Article (iii) Part (f), International
>>> Uniform Cycle Polo Code:
>>>
>>> "Any severed head used in tournament or official exhibition play must
>>> be fitted with a certified helmet as defined in Sec. IV, Chap. 5, Art.
>>> vi, Part c."
>>
>> ESAD!!!!!
>>
>> Troll!
>>
>Chalo is hardly a troll on RBT.
Probably not; however, *I* am. You take yourself way too seriously,
Tom.
>
>The Eat Shit and Die comment is out of line.
I agree, so why say it?
Jones
!Jones
�_� <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>No, no, no.
>
>Try the whole population studies of cyclists in places like Australia
>and New Zealand as examples.
Yes, yes, yes.
Let me try it this way: I will be the researcher and you're the
population; n=1. Thus, I'm doing a "whole population study." Based
upon my observations, the entire population lacks a clue as to what a
"whole population study" is.
Tom, do you like asparagus? (Let's say you do if it's not cooked to
mush.)
100% of the people like asparagus.
Now, does asparagus *cause* ignorance about this type of study?
I can't say that.
Will a taste for asparagus correlate with ignorance about whole
population studies in any *other* group?
I dunno... no other groups exist as far as *this* study is concerned.
My statistics are entirely descriptive... I never run any inferential
variance analysis or anything like that. A whole pop study about the
habits of cyclists in Iowa tells me squat about Nebraska cyclists...
'cept the men can't marry each other.
Jones
Frank Krygowski
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman
>
> °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >As are the simple facts that the greater effective head size with the
> >foam bicycle hat will increase the frequency of impacts to the head, and
> >increase rotational forces on the head during any impact.
>
> OK, I think you're referring to:
>
> Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of
> Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report, Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V.
> and Thom, D.R., Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern
> California, Los Angeles, California 90007, Contract No. DOT
> HS-5-01160, January 1981
>
> This 1981 study (known as the "Hurt Report") is pretty much the bible
> of helmet studies. Essentially, it's a motorcycle study; however, its
> findings can (within reason) be applied to all sporting helmets,
> particularly bicycle helmets.
"Within reason"?
All we have to do is ignore the differences between motorcycle helmets
and bicycle helmets. A careful observer may note one or two. ;-)
While you're at it, I suppose you should ignore the differences
between motorcycling and bicycling. Last time I looked, the fatality
rate (per hour) for motorcycling was over 30 times that of bicycling.
Even if you could make a strong case for motorcycle helmets - which
itself isn't cut and dried - there's a long way to go between that and
bike helmets.
The foundation of bike helmet promotion and mandates is that
bicycling is a big risk of head injury. Apparently there are lots of
folks who think two wheels are the sign of danger. I guess it's
easier to count to two than to look up more complicated data.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:00:30 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman
>
> >No, no, no.
>
> >Try the whole population studies of cyclists in places like Australia
> >and New Zealand as examples.
>
> Yes, yes, yes.
>
> Let me try it this way: I will be the researcher and you're the
> population; n=1. Thus, I'm doing a "whole population study." Based
> upon my observations, the entire population lacks a clue as to what a
> "whole population study" is.
The problem is "whole population" means one thing in the language of a
statistician, and (usually) another thing in the context of studying
what happens to the citizens of a country.
Tom is referring to the fact that, based on faulty case-control
studies with self-selected subjects, helmets became mandatory for the
whole population of Australia, then New Zealand. And despite the
wonderful predictions, there was no detectable benefit. Again,
helmets on all cyclists - or as close to "all" as strong promotion and
strict enforcement could achieve - brought no reduction in serious
head injuries per remaining cyclist.
Jones, have you read Scuffham, P.A. et.al., "Trends in Cycling
Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use," 1997, Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1 ? Check it out.
- Frank Krygowski
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Brian,
Please, make no odious comparisons, lest we end up discussing "strange
looking" headgear and dwarf safety riders like these:
http://i39.tinypic.com/1z38lzd.jpg
The two stylish riders are Thomas Gaskell Allen and William Lewis
Sachtleben, authors of "Across Asia on a Bicycle"--they left St.
Louis, Missouri, in June, 1890, the day after they graduated from
Washington University, and rode 15,000 miles in three years:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ktAoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP19
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Grange
Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New
Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators
using flawed data made helmets mandatory. Since they did that there
has been no evidence that the incidence of head injuries has improved.
Helmet zealots will tell you the rate of head injuries declined in
Australia, but ignore the fact that the number of people cycling
reduced by a larger percentage, so the incidence per cyclist actually
went up.
There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
wedge for helmet compulsion. Even the helmet manufacturers don't claim
any benefit for helmets in collisions above 14 mph (I think that's the
figure). Most of the cars round here are doing quite a bit more than
14mph when they pass me.
I believe even some states in the US have helmet compulsion now. It's
fast becoming a no-choice issue, when there's still no compelling
evidence that they do any good.
Simon Lewis
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:45:20 -0500, !Jones <f...@foo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:14:08 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech RonSonic
>><rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I often ride those trails without a helmet as there's nothing much to hit your
>>>head on.
>>
>>Yeah, well... if you want a sermon, you're asking the wrong person.
>>*I* wear a helmet. Assuming you're of the age of consent, you make
>>your own decisions.
>>
> Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New
> Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators
> using flawed data made helmets mandatory. Since they did that there
> has been no evidence that the incidence of head injuries has improved.
> Helmet zealots will tell you the rate of head injuries declined in
> Australia, but ignore the fact that the number of people cycling
> reduced by a larger percentage, so the incidence per cyclist actually
> went up.
> There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
> not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
> car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
> wedge for helmet compulsion. Even the helmet manufacturers don't claim
> any benefit for helmets in collisions above 14 mph (I think that's the
> figure). Most of the cars round here are doing quite a bit more than
> 14mph when they pass me.
Way to skew the facts. Most collisions dont happen at top speeds. They
happen in stop start traffic. And not all are "head on", they are
"brushes" which cause the cyclist to topple.
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Tom is referring to the fact that, based on faulty case-control
>studies with self-selected subjects, ...
Which was what I pointed out right up front. I believe I said, "The
study has serious design issues," when I mentioned it. You'll have to
define the term "case-control" because it's not in my vocabulary; one
sees that type of study (Thompson, et. al.) called "correlational" or
"comparative" in the US literature; however, I have seen at least one
text (Gay, et. al., 1998) call it a "causal-comparaitve" design...
which led students into deep confusion because the *last* term one may
use in such a design is "cause".
Jones
!Jones
- <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:42:55 -0500, !Jones <f...@foo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You will never see such a study. For similar reasons, you'll never
>>see a study on smoking that shows it causes lung illness; you'll never
>>see a study that shows firing bullets into your brain causes death,
>>either.
>
>
>The "helmets don't help" crowd have difficulty understanding the
>issues with these (helmet-injury) statistics.
There are other factors besides helmets at work here, obviously. I
recall about 1995 or so, Austin, TX passed an ordinance requiring
bicyclists to wear helmets... it was not well received; people would
wear helmets with no straps, etc. Then the state repealed its
motorcycle helmet law, leaving Austin in the absurd position of
requiring a helmet of a mo-ped rider if he or she were pedalling the
machine; however, under engine power, no helmet was required.
Jones
!Jones
<pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New
>Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators
>using flawed data made helmets mandatory...
Well, they're a democracy; the good citizens of Australia and New
Zealand can jolly well vote their legislators out of office if they
don't like what they do. If you don't live there, it's not your
problem.
Jones
!Jones
<pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
>not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
>car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
>wedge for helmet compulsion.
Do you happen to have a citation on that? Actually, I think it's
"bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. My personal
freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
exercising it. I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
(hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.
I saw a personal injury insurance policy that explicitly didn't apply
to any injury suffered if one sustained it while participating in a
whole list of sports without a helmet. Actually, you could have your
foot amputated and, if you weren't wearing a helmet, the policy
technically would be void.
Jones
Jay Beattie
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
>
> <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
> >not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
> >car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
> >wedge for helmet compulsion.
>
> Do you happen to have a citation on that? Actually, I think it's
> "bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. My personal
> freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
> exercising it. I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
> would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
> (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
> mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.
In Oregon, we have a MHL for children under 16, however the same
statute provides that the failure to wear a helmet may not be offered
as evidence of comparative fault in a personal injury action -- filed
by any plaintiff, regardless of age.-- Jay Beattie.
Peter Grange
>On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
><pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
>>not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
>>car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
>>wedge for helmet compulsion.
>
>Do you happen to have a citation on that? Actually, I think it's
>"bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. My personal
>freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
>exercising it. I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
>would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
>(hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
>mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.
I have absolutely no problem with personal choice, and taking the
consequences with that choice. There is however no credible evidence
that wearing a helmet will afford me any protection in a motor vehicle
accident, so saying I take some responsibility for my injuries if I'm
not wearing one is just plain nonsense.
Peter Grange
Most car/cycle collisions occur at junctions, and are often head-on,
or side-on. In any case please see earlier discussion about rotational
effects in glancing blows.
I'm slowing down since I passed 60 but most of the time before that
_I_ would have been going at >14 mph, let alone the cars.
Frank Krygowski
Hmm. You should check with Thompson, Rivara & Thompson, the authors
of the ludicrous "85%" study. The term is part of the title of their
paper: "A Case-Control Study of Effectiveness of Bicycle Safety
Helmets."
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
>
> <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
> >not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
> >car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
> >wedge for helmet compulsion.
>
> Do you happen to have a citation on that? Actually, I think it's
> "bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. My personal
> freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
> exercising it. I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
> would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
> (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
> mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.
Hmm. So, to which activities should that idea apply?
See http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Causes.htm
Remember there are far more pedestrians and motorists dying of fatal
head injuries than cyclists. (Peds are supposedly far worse than
cyclists per mile or per hour.) Also remember that in the US,
bicyclists are less than 1% of the fatal head injuries. Do you plan
to persecute the other 99% of sufferers as well?
Once again, the entire helmet promotion phenomenon is based on a false
claim, which is that bicycling is an unusual source of serious head
injuries.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
- Frank Krygowski
Simon Lewis
Would you think you are more likely to suffer an accident in 2000 hours
of cycling in commuter traffic or in 2000 hours of pedestrian shopping?
And should you hit your head when falling off your bike would you think
a helmet protects your skull or not?
If I hit you on your head with a hammer do you think it will hurt you
more when you wear a helmet or when you don't wear a helmet?
Do you think putting eggs in a corrugated box is a silly idea since the
chance of dropping them is small?
Jay Beattie
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 13, 8:07 am, !Jones <f...@foo.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
>
> >> <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
> >> >not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
> >> >car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
> >> >wedge for helmet compulsion.
>
> >> Do you happen to have a citation on that? Actually, I think it's
> >> "bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. My personal
> >> freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
> >> exercising it. I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
> >> would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
> >> (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
> >> mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.
>
> > Hmm. So, to which activities should that idea apply?
>
> > Remember there are far more pedestrians and motorists dying of fatal
> > head injuries than cyclists. (Peds are supposedly far worse than
> > cyclists per mile or per hour.) Also remember that in the US,
> > bicyclists are less than 1% of the fatal head injuries. Do you plan
> > to persecute the other 99% of sufferers as well?
>
> > Once again, the entire helmet promotion phenomenon is based on a false
> > claim, which is that bicycling is an unusual source of serious head
> > injuries.
>
> > Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Would you think you are more likely to suffer an accident in 2000 hours
> of cycling in commuter traffic or in 2000 hours of pedestrian shopping?
>
> And should you hit your head when falling off your bike would you think
> a helmet protects your skull or not?
>
> If I hit you on your head with a hammer do you think it will hurt you
> more when you wear a helmet or when you don't wear a helmet?
>
> Do you think putting eggs in a corrugated box is a silly idea since the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah, there is the problem! With eggs in corrugated boxes, you get
serious egg risk-compensation. You believe that you can toss your
eggs around with abandon. But if you drop the box, believe me, your
eggs will be scrambled. Even those eggs that do not break will have
serious rotational injuries -- you will not have perfect yolks for
your poached eggs.
Moreover, when you carry eggs in a bulky, corrugated box, it is more
likely that you will catch the box on a refrigerator door or milk
carton, causing it to slip from your hands and on to the floor. With
all the corrugated egg box advertising by Big Paper, we have come to
believe in the safety of those boxes -- which is a false belief. This
is why I simply drop my eggs in to my shopping cart along with my
other items. -- Jay Beattie.
Michael Press
Still Just Me - <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:38:29 GMT, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
> <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:17:51 -0400, Still Just Me -
> ><stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> >
> >>My head will be moving in one
> >>direction towards the object it's about to impact.
> >
> >Really? I'd think that in most cycling accidents the head impacts
> >diagonally on some object, such as the ground. So there would be
> >componnets of both head-on and glancing impacts, the latter helping
> >turn the head. And a larger "head size" would increase those turning
> >forces.
>
> And then?
"Biomechanically, there is little argument today that
Holbourn (1943) was right, and it is rotational motion
that dominates the nature and extent of brain injury
not simply linear translational acceleration."
<http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/features/June06Helmetfeature.pdf>
"Biomechanical studies concerning athletic injuries have suggested
that angular head accelerations have a higher incidence of injury.[7]"
[7] Levi L, Guilburd JN, Lemberger A, Soustiel JF, Feinsod M.
Diffuse axonal injury: analysis of 100 patients with radiological signs.
Neurosurgery. 1990;27:429–432.
"Another entity, delayed traumatic intracerebral hematoma,
is a clot that forms hours to days after the initial trauma.
The athlete is also at risk because these
hematomas are seen more commonly when there has been
rotational head trauma. Delayed traumatic hematomas are
believed to be due to later bleeding into an already
contused region of the brain, to vascular injury, or to
the development of a coagulopathy."
<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=155412>
<http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=925505>
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<887468b0-7ed0-44c2...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
Just so. It is a fact that the membrane on an egg yolk
can be broken without damaging the egg shell.
--
Michael Press