loose chain guard with defect plastic bar to hold it

[Emanuel Berg]

The other day there was a bike with a loose
chain guard. The chain guard is plastic but to
my surprise there weren't nuts and bolts but
instead two slots thru the plastic, each
~1.3 cm long and < 0.5 cm wide.

What attached into them slots was a plastic bar
with a hook at each end, with the plastic bar
between the rim and the chain guard, attached
to the midpoint, integrated (?) with the
crank somehow.

What had happened is, one of them hooks had
been broken by the bar and was gone. So with
the tension gone from below the upper hook also
lost its grip even tho it is still there, and
the bar had rotated a couple of cm out
of position.

With a rubber hammer, I hit the bar into
position. Then I drilled two holes, one at each
end. Into that hole and the slots I inserted
cable ties to seal it at both endpoints.

I don't know if it is a good idea, but it seemed
to work for the moment at least.

Do you recognize this situation and as I'm sure
you do, what is the correct way to deal
with it?

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 34 Blogomatic articles -

[John B.]

From your description it sounds as though you replaced a "plastic bar"
with some "plastic cable ties". Pretty much returning things to their
original condition.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> From your description it sounds as though you
> replaced a "plastic bar" with some "plastic
> cable ties". Pretty much returning things to
> their original condition.

To some extent - the plastic cable ties are
thinner but perhaps better suited to "roll with
the punches"...

But let's say I restored it - is that good or
bad, given that it failed?

[John B.]

On Thu, 19 May 2016 14:27:34 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> From your description it sounds as though you
>> replaced a "plastic bar" with some "plastic
>> cable ties". Pretty much returning things to
>> their original condition.
>
>To some extent - the plastic cable ties are
>thinner but perhaps better suited to "roll with
>the punches"...
>
>But let's say I restored it - is that good or
>bad, given that it failed?

I would say that was pretty much up to you to decide.

I would comment that not all bicycles are equipped with chain guards
and people seem ride bicycles either with or without chain guards. I
never, for example, heard anyone say "Oh! I can't ride that bike. Why
it doesn't have a chain guard."
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> I would comment that not all bicycles are
> equipped with chain guards and people seem
> ride bicycles either with or without chain
> guards. I never, for example, heard anyone
> say "Oh! I can't ride that bike. Why it
> doesn't have a chain guard."

Maybe there is another bike culture in your
country (?) perhaps because of different
weather, here, with snow, and water that turns
into ice, virtually all bikes have chain guards
and if a bike doesn't come with one this would
be associated with sport, some dude trying to
cut a couple of hundred grams or whatever is
the weight of a chain guard.

Also the typical person doesn't wear wellies
and doesn't want to be bothered putting the
sock in and out each time.

I also suppose the chain lube disappears more
quickly without it, especially if rain, tho
I don't think this is anything the typical
person considers...

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/19/2016 10:28 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> I would comment that not all bicycles are
>> equipped with chain guards and people seem
>> ride bicycles either with or without chain
>> guards. I never, for example, heard anyone
>> say "Oh! I can't ride that bike. Why it
>> doesn't have a chain guard."
>
> Maybe there is another bike culture in your
> country (?) perhaps because of different
> weather, here, with snow, and water that turns
> into ice, virtually all bikes have chain guards
> and if a bike doesn't come with one this would
> be associated with sport, some dude trying to
> cut a couple of hundred grams or whatever is
> the weight of a chain guard.

In the U.S., an astonishing percentage of bicycles would be considered
by Europeans to be more suitable for "sport" than anything else. And
indeed, very little bike use here is for anything else.

Even many (or most?) of the small percentage of Americans who use bikes
for utility seem to pick something that looks like a "sport" machine.
That's just the way it is here.

I'd bet fewer than 1% of adult American bikes have chain guards. None
of mine do.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 5/19/2016 9:28 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> I would comment that not all bicycles are
>> equipped with chain guards and people seem
>> ride bicycles either with or without chain
>> guards. I never, for example, heard anyone
>> say "Oh! I can't ride that bike. Why it
>> doesn't have a chain guard."
>
> Maybe there is another bike culture in your
> country (?) perhaps because of different
> weather, here, with snow, and water that turns
> into ice, virtually all bikes have chain guards
> and if a bike doesn't come with one this would
> be associated with sport, some dude trying to
> cut a couple of hundred grams or whatever is
> the weight of a chain guard.
>
> Also the typical person doesn't wear wellies
> and doesn't want to be bothered putting the
> sock in and out each time.
>
> I also suppose the chain lube disappears more
> quickly without it, especially if rain, tho
> I don't think this is anything the typical
> person considers...
>

Really? These Svensk guys ride Bianchis just like the
Bianchis in my shop:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ALtD0TEp4Gw/UecBiF4q7oI/AAAAAAAAkUg/eYr61GVHbIk/s1600/1064028_500256620042727_57025097_o.jpg

No chainguards.

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

[AMuzi]

On 5/20/2016 12:57 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> considered Fri, 20 May 2016 07:33:16 -0500

> They are to the average European cyclist what Paula Radcliffe is to
> the average pedestrian, or Lewis Hamilton to the average motorist.
>
> If you want to see an average European bicycle, look at the bike parks
> at railway stations with thousands of spaces where average cyclists
> park their bikes on the way to or from work.
>
> And as long as all you sell are sports bicycles, the only people you
> will sell them to are sports cyclists, and you'll never penetrate the
> enormous potential market among the rest of the population.
>
> Look at the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, and
> increasingly the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway (by no means
> a complete list) to see what proportion of bikes are sporting cycles
> when cycling really has become mass personal transportation, with a
> market penetration tens of times yours as a proportion of the
> population.
>

We are non parochial on the topic of bicycles. Celebrate
diversity!

I was responding to "virtually all bikes have chain guards"
above.

[Emanuel Berg]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:

> If you want to see an average European
> bicycle, look at the bike parks at railway
> stations with thousands of spaces where
> average cyclists park their bikes on the way

> to or from work. ...

>
> Look at the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium,
> Luxembourg, and increasingly the UK, France,
> Germany, Sweden, and Norway (by no means
> a complete list) to see what proportion of
> bikes are sporting cycles when cycling really
> has become mass personal transportation

The railway station is the best example. It is
as much a bicycle graveyard as a marketplace
for bums.

But all over the city are thousands and
thousands of bikes: at the commercial center,
the hospital, all buildings associated with the
universtity (both educaion and where the
students live), and so on.

There are people working with marking
half-crashed bikes as abandoned and if they
aren't moved at a certain date, they are
disposed of - otherwise the whole city would
drown in wrecked bikes!

There are 410 km [1] of bicycle paths in this
city of 187 541 people. [2]

[1] (Swedish) https://www.uppsala.se/contentassets/48b6cbf40cbe48bca58e8445090882e2/cykelbokslut2013-tryck.pdf
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=uppsala&printable=yes

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 36 Blogomatic articles -

[Emanuel Berg]

AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> writes:

> Really? These Svensk guys ride Bianchis just
> like the Bianchis in my shop:
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ALtD0TEp4Gw/UecBiF4q7oI/AAAAAAAAkUg/eYr61GVHbIk/s1600/1064028_500256620042727_57025097_o.jpg
>
> No chainguards.

There are mountainbikes here as well and
perhaps some racers that don't have it, as well
as some standard bikes that don't have it for
dysfunctional reasons, but that is associated
with sport and youth culture.

If you find a picture of a lady of 60 years
riding one, I'll yield. Among the
non-"sport and youth culture" people
mountainbikes are considered unreliable because
of the gears and unergonomic because of the
stooping. People definitely want chain guards.

On the other hand, these people seldom wear
helmets, unless they have kids and wish to set
an example.

I know that AMuzi has a shop that is
incomparable to mine, but just for fun I'll
count the standard bike-MTB ratio tonight and
get back with an exact figure :)

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 36 Blogomatic articles -

[John B.]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 04:28:05 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> I would comment that not all bicycles are
>> equipped with chain guards and people seem
>> ride bicycles either with or without chain
>> guards. I never, for example, heard anyone
>> say "Oh! I can't ride that bike. Why it
>> doesn't have a chain guard."
>
>Maybe there is another bike culture in your
>country (?) perhaps because of different
>weather, here, with snow, and water that turns
>into ice, virtually all bikes have chain guards
>and if a bike doesn't come with one this would
>be associated with sport, some dude trying to
>cut a couple of hundred grams or whatever is
>the weight of a chain guard.
>
>Also the typical person doesn't wear wellies
>and doesn't want to be bothered putting the
>sock in and out each time.
>

No one uses a "bicycle Clip" :-)

>I also suppose the chain lube disappears more
>quickly without it, especially if rain, tho
>I don't think this is anything the typical
>person considers...

I'm not sure what sort of chain guard you are talking about but the
ones I am envisioning are a sort of inverted "L" with the short arm
sticking down in the front and these aren't going to give much, if
any, protection to the chain to keep it from getting dirty.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 18:57:21 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>

wrote:

>AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> considered Fri, 20 May 2016 07:33:16 -0500
>the perfect time to write:
>

>They are to the average European cyclist what Paula Radcliffe is to
>the average pedestrian, or Lewis Hamilton to the average motorist.
>

>If you want to see an average European bicycle, look at the bike parks
>at railway stations with thousands of spaces where average cyclists
>park their bikes on the way to or from work.
>

>And as long as all you sell are sports bicycles, the only people you
>will sell them to are sports cyclists, and you'll never penetrate the
>enormous potential market among the rest of the population.
>

>Look at the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, and
>increasingly the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway (by no means
>a complete list) to see what proportion of bikes are sporting cycles

>when cycling really has become mass personal transportation, with a
>market penetration tens of times yours as a proportion of the
>population.

In December last year there was a mass bicycle ride in honor of the
king's birthday and it was reported that 750,000, or more, cyclists
participated nation wide.

Here is a you tube made during the Bangkok ride. Count the chain
guards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA2hfXLDvqo

and then count the bikes without chain guards :-)


--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

OT regarding chain guards. But that looked less than spontaneous, and a
bit weird.

I'm glad we avoided having kings.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Emanuel Berg]

Here is a photo of a typical standard bike.
I don't like dynamos, and the rear wheel lacks
a reflex, other than that it looks pretty good
including the chain guard.

http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/photos/standard.jpg

By the way, I said I would count the bikes - it
turns out, I am the proud owner of 74 standard
bikes and 10 MTBs. The 74 standard bikes should
all have chain guards, and if they don't, it is
only because some of them are decades from
their prime :)

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 37 Blogomatic articles -

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

>> Also the typical person doesn't wear wellies
>> and doesn't want to be bothered putting the
>> sock in and out each time.
>
> No one uses a "bicycle Clip" :-)

Most people don't wear *helmets*!

And this is because men think they are "yet are
another thing to keep track of" and women think
that as well but they might have aesthetic
concerns as well...

Here, people just use bikes, they are not into
them, and couldn't care less for extra gear and
equipment... In a way that is perhaps a healthy
attitude as they have other things on their
minds, but I'd definitely recommend the use of
a helmet just like people should use one when
they play ice hockey (not the same helmet of
course).

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 37 Blogomatic articles -

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/20/2016 11:00 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>>> Also the typical person doesn't wear wellies
>>> and doesn't want to be bothered putting the
>>> sock in and out each time.
>>
>> No one uses a "bicycle Clip" :-)
>
> Most people don't wear *helmets*!
>
> And this is because men think they are "yet are
> another thing to keep track of" and women think
> that as well but they might have aesthetic
> concerns as well...
>
> Here, people just use bikes, they are not into
> them, and couldn't care less for extra gear and
> equipment... In a way that is perhaps a healthy
> attitude as they have other things on their
> minds, but I'd definitely recommend the use of
> a helmet just like people should use one when
> they play ice hockey (not the same helmet of
> course).

It seems very strange to pretend that riding a bike is like playing ice
hockey.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Emanuel Berg]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
writes:

>> Most people don't wear *helmets*! And this
>> is because men think they are "yet are
>> another thing to keep track of" and women
>> think that as well but they might have
>> aesthetic concerns as well... Here, people
>> just use bikes, they are not into them, and
>> couldn't care less for extra gear and
>> equipment... In a way that is perhaps
>> a healthy attitude as they have other things
>> on their minds, but I'd definitely recommend
>> the use of a helmet just like people should
>> use one when they play ice hockey (not the
>> same helmet of course).
>
> It seems very strange to pretend that riding
> a bike is like playing ice hockey.

It is even more strange that when playing ice
hockey it is all but unacceptable to not wear
a helmet even on the hobby level without body
contact (almost), but with bikes you can ride
thru the city like a phantom at night and not
wearing a helmet will not strike anyone as
strange...

[John B.]

Of course it is "less then spontaneous". Good Lord, they planned that
shindig for nearly a month. We even had the mandatory scandal about
someone selling those tee shirts, that were supposed to be free :-)

>I'm glad we avoided having kings.

Ah, but as a bicycle activist can you imagine, say a hundred thousand
cyclists (with matching shirts) showing up to your next "Do"?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 04:51:12 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>>> I also suppose the chain lube disappears
>>> more quickly without it, especially if rain,
>>> tho I don't think this is anything the
>>> typical person considers...
>>
>> I'm not sure what sort of chain guard you are
>> talking about but the ones I am envisioning
>> are a sort of inverted "L" with the short arm
>> sticking down in the front and these aren't
>> going to give much, if any, protection to the
>> chain to keep it from getting dirty.
>
>Here is a photo of a typical standard bike.
>I don't like dynamos, and the rear wheel lacks
>a reflex, other than that it looks pretty good
>including the chain guard.
>
> http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/photos/standard.jpg

I'm not sure whether that qualifies as a "standard bike" as I'd guess
that if you visited every bicycle shop in Bangkok you wouldn't find a
twin of that bike. :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 05:00:27 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>>> Also the typical person doesn't wear wellies
>>> and doesn't want to be bothered putting the
>>> sock in and out each time.
>>
>> No one uses a "bicycle Clip" :-)
>
>Most people don't wear *helmets*!
>
>And this is because men think they are "yet are
>another thing to keep track of" and women think
>that as well but they might have aesthetic
>concerns as well...
>
>Here, people just use bikes, they are not into
>them, and couldn't care less for extra gear and
>equipment... In a way that is perhaps a healthy
>attitude as they have other things on their
>minds, but I'd definitely recommend the use of
>a helmet just like people should use one when
>they play ice hockey (not the same helmet of
>course).

I'm not sure about the ice hockey but I certainly see folks riding to
the market for the day's food without all that fancy bicycle stuff.
But of course if it is raining they do use an umbrella.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> I'm not sure about the ice hockey but
> I certainly see folks riding to the market
> for the day's food without all that fancy
> bicycle stuff.

Riding a bike on streets with cars and busses
(which is an everyday thing here) is much more
dangerous than playing ice hockey on the
hobby level.

But there is no need to compare the level of
danger because I think you should have a helmet
doing either.

Also consider people often ride bikes
when drunk!

White reflex front, red back, and yellow to the
sides, on the rims (the spokes); hand brake if
the bike has two or more gears; a helmet;
decent bike care; basic knowledge of traffic
rules; winter tires during the winter; red
light back and white front when dark, lights
that aren't put on blink mode - that should
be enough.

There is also a law all bikes should have
a bell but I don't see this contributing to
safety really. But why not.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> I'm not sure whether that qualifies as
> a "standard bike" as I'd guess that if you
> visited every bicycle shop in Bangkok you
> wouldn't find a twin of that bike. :-)

"Standardcykel" is everything more basic than
a racer, I think. Often with the Torpedo hub,
1, 3, or 5 gears.

Here:

https://www.google.se/search?tbm=isch&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&q=standardcykel

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/21/2016 3:10 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>

> writes:
>
>> It seems very strange to pretend that riding
>> a bike is like playing ice hockey.
>
> It is even more strange that when playing ice
> hockey it is all but unacceptable to not wear
> a helmet even on the hobby level without body
> contact (almost), but with bikes you can ride
> thru the city like a phantom at night and not
> wearing a helmet will not strike anyone as
> strange...

Not wearing a helmet doesn't seem strange because people know there is
very, very little risk of seriously impacting one's head while riding a
bike. They see a simple bike ride as much different than sporting
combat, swinging big sticks while trying to stay upright on a sheet of ice.

In fact, the idea that a normal bike ride imposes a great risk of
serious brain injury is itself strange. That idea appeared only when
companies started marketing special plastic hats for bike riders.

The idea is not supported by historical evidence. It's not supported by
modern data either. That belief is a purposely crafted myth. And so is
the myth that the flimsy hats make a tremendous difference.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/21/2016 9:36 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure about the ice hockey but
>> I certainly see folks riding to the market
>> for the day's food without all that fancy
>> bicycle stuff.
>
> Riding a bike on streets with cars and busses
> (which is an everyday thing here) is much more
> dangerous than playing ice hockey on the
> hobby level.

Got data?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Actually, the guy who now runs our club's century ride spent quite a lot
of time at our last meeting explaining that he doesn't want the ride to
be too big. When I ran the ride, I got it up above the 600 mark; but he
prefers to keep it to about 150.

To handle a hundred thousand, we'd probably have to give someone the
power of royalty. I think a lot of our citizens would object.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Emanuel Berg]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>

writes:

>>> I'm not sure about the ice hockey but
>>> I certainly see folks riding to the market
>>> for the day's food without all that fancy
>>> bicycle stuff.
>>
>> Riding a bike on streets with cars and
>> busses (which is an everyday thing here) is
>> much more dangerous than playing ice hockey
>> on the hobby level.

I have crashed seven times what I can remember,
not including many times as kid that I don't
remember specifically.

I only hit my head one of those times, but then
I'm confident the helmet helped me as there
were marks on it.

I have seen dozens of crashes. Those have
mostly been drunk students when they try to get
off or on their bikes, or having another person
on the luggage carrier.

My mother once rammed her car into a kid
crossing the street on his bike. The kid seemed
to be alright (and he was), but she still
called his mother, terrified, telling the story
she hit her kid with a car. And his mother just
said good, this will teach him not to bike like
an idiot!

At work there is a guy who lost hearing on one
ear after a bike accident (I don't know the
details).

I'll look for stats and be back if I find any,
but I'm confident the way people do
recreational ice hockey once a week while sober
is much safer than riding a bike several times
a day in traffic, sometimes drunk, often
without winter tires in the winter, often
without lights when dark, often with poor bike
care, etc.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Most bicycle bells are useless as warning item especially on a bicycl with a drop bar. First of all the bell isn't heard over traffic noise or by drivers. Second the person who is being rung at needs to figure out where the sound is coming from. Third, by the time the bicyclist reaches and rings the bell they could have stopped, swerved around the object/person or yelled much louder than the bell rings.

Cheers

[John B.]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 15:39:12 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure whether that qualifies as
>> a "standard bike" as I'd guess that if you
>> visited every bicycle shop in Bangkok you
>> wouldn't find a twin of that bike. :-)
>
>"Standardcykel" is everything more basic than
>a racer, I think. Often with the Torpedo hub,
>1, 3, or 5 gears.
>
>Here:
>
> https://www.google.se/search?tbm=isch&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&q=standardcykel

Perhaps There but not Here. A typical scene Here:
http://travel.cnn.com/bangkok/play/cycling-bangkok-not-just-insane-266276/
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 15:36:22 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure about the ice hockey but
>> I certainly see folks riding to the market
>> for the day's food without all that fancy
>> bicycle stuff.
>
>Riding a bike on streets with cars and busses
>(which is an everyday thing here) is much more
>dangerous than playing ice hockey on the
>hobby level.

I think that is a very dependent on what streets. Here I see folks who
are out every morning on the bike. Down to the market for the day's
food, maybe a bit of a natter with old friends, and home again.

If you told these folks that were taking their life in their hands to
be riding a bicycle, or that they should wear a helmet, they would
stare at you in awe. After all, they have been doing it for years and
their parents likely did it too. "Dangerous? You've got to be
kidding".

>But there is no need to compare the level of
>danger because I think you should have a helmet
>doing either.

It may come as a surprise but it is quite common for "Local" people to
firmly believe that "Outsiders" are, well, not very bright. To tell
the grandmother, down the street, that she should wear a helmet for
her morning visit to the marker on her bike, well. You just confirmed
it.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

But bells are so much more genteel. Tinkle, tinkle, is certainly more
refined then "HEY! OUT THE F_ _KING WAY!" :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 10:33:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Actually the royalty mostly staid home and the police managed things.

Imagine, as a bicycle activist, having so many cyclists show up for
your "ride" that the cops had to be called out, roads closed to autos,
TV cameras on every corner, news reporters ....

And, if like here, the citizens applauded you?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Joy Beeson]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 10:29:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Not wearing a helmet doesn't seem strange because people know there is
> very, very little risk of seriously impacting one's head while riding a
> bike.

In today's paper was a report of a crash in which the rider did suffer
head injuries, and a helmet probably would have helped.

But it wouldn't have helped near as much as screwing his pedals on
properly. The paper said that the rider fell off his bike because a
pedal broke off when he braked.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[Andrew Chaplin]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in
news:lurtjbdaqla1rdrg8...@4ax.com:

> No one uses a "bicycle Clip" :-)

Ahem. ;-)

I still have the pair of clips I bought in the early 1970s. When I ride in
trousers, I use them. (I alsmost never ride in trousers anymore. The last
time would have been the spring of 2012.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[John B.]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 11:07:29 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Chaplin
<ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in
>news:lurtjbdaqla1rdrg8...@4ax.com:
>
>> No one uses a "bicycle Clip" :-)
>
>Ahem. ;-)
>
>I still have the pair of clips I bought in the early 1970s. When I ride in
>trousers, I use them. (I alsmost never ride in trousers anymore. The last
>time would have been the spring of 2012.)

I believe that Amazon, among others, still are selling them.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> I think that is a very dependent on what
> streets. Here I see folks who are out every
> morning on the bike. Down to the market for
> the day's food, maybe a bit of a natter with
> old friends, and home again.

I didn't go to Thailand but I think it is
a safe bet that traffic is more ordered in
Sweden and with less vehicles on almost any
given street.

On the other hand, there is no ice and snow on
the streets in the winters in the Southeast,
and many crashes here happen that way, people
don't use studded tires, and when they turn,
for example in a roundabout, they slip and
start to glide...

> After all, they have been doing it for years
> and their parents likely did it too.
> "Dangerous? You've got to be kidding".

So have I and many others, but that doesn't
make it less dangerous, but more, because that
will increase the volume of it, and it will
mean you do it in all mental and physical
states, perhaps when drunk, exhausted,
emotionally upset, very hungry or thirsty, etc.

Also consider those situations happens to other
riders and drivers as well!

Just to wake up, everything is OK, ride to the
shop and buy milk, of course that is
not dangerous!

But go by bike a lifetime you would have a hard
time determine when everything is OK and when
there is a situation, so the safe bet is to
always use a helmet.

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 39 Blogomatic articles -

[Emanuel Berg]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid>
writes:

> In today's paper was a report of a crash in
> which the rider did suffer head injuries, and
> a helmet probably would have helped.
>
> But it wouldn't have helped near as much as
> screwing his pedals on properly. The paper
> said that the rider fell off his bike because
> a pedal broke off when he braked.

Indeed, and considering the state of many bikes
- 30+ years old with zero maintainance save for
once they break and are turned into a shop - it
is actually amazing this sort of things doesn't
happen more often!

With pedals tho they seem to stick just tighter
with age and before I learned of the pipe trick
in which to enter the combination wrench I had
all sorts of trouble getting them off :)

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 40 Blogomatic articles -

[John B.]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 10:48:20 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> I think that is a very dependent on what
>> streets. Here I see folks who are out every
>> morning on the bike. Down to the market for
>> the day's food, maybe a bit of a natter with
>> old friends, and home again.
>
>I didn't go to Thailand but I think it is
>a safe bet that traffic is more ordered in
>Sweden and with less vehicles on almost any
>given street.

The thing about Bangkok, and I suspect most cities, is that while the
main thoroughfares are crowded and chocker-block full there are far
more small streets and lanes where the bulk off the people live that
are just small narrow streets. Crowded and because that they are
crowded traffic is slower.

But I suspect a major factor is that Thai people are used to bicycles
and don't regard them as something strange. My wife used to pedal our
son to school when he was a little chap. If I walk out of the lane our
house is built on early in the morning I will see a fair number of
women, with their bicycles, buying the days food.

In other words, bicycles aren't some strange exotic thing with a body
clad in tight and colorful clothes perched on the top.

>On the other hand, there is no ice and snow on
>the streets in the winters in the Southeast,
>and many crashes here happen that way, people
>don't use studded tires, and when they turn,
>for example in a roundabout, they slip and
>start to glide...

No. No snow and ice.

>> After all, they have been doing it for years
>> and their parents likely did it too.
>> "Dangerous? You've got to be kidding".
>
>So have I and many others, but that doesn't
>make it less dangerous, but more, because that
>will increase the volume of it, and it will
>mean you do it in all mental and physical
>states, perhaps when drunk, exhausted,
>emotionally upset, very hungry or thirsty, etc.
>
>Also consider those situations happens to other
>riders and drivers as well!
>
>Just to wake up, everything is OK, ride to the
>shop and buy milk, of course that is
>not dangerous!
>
>But go by bike a lifetime you would have a hard
>time determine when everything is OK and when
>there is a situation, so the safe bet is to
>always use a helmet.

I'm not sure that I agree but I can't provide any evidence to the
contrary.

--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

And sometimes making a healthy return:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Terry-Trouser-Clip-Made-In-The-Uk-Holds-Your-Pant-Leg-Bag-Vintage-Bicycle-NOS-/272149781174?hash=item3f5d641ab6:g:Hp0AAMXQ0pNRvqXr

Sold new for $1.49/pair

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

[Andrew Chaplin]

AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in news:nhurg9$d4h$1...@dont-email.me:

Mine were also a product of Terry, but they go around your trouser leg at
the ankle.

Like these, but without the plastic coating.
<http://www.bikes-n-co.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=
252>

[Frank Krygowski]

The metal trouser clips that surround one's ankle always disappointed
me. My cuffs would creep out as I rode, eventually contacting the
chain. I switched to large safety pins years ago.

Last time I rode in ordinary trousers was last night, leading a
leisurely bike club ride. Eleven whole miles in the dark, with an ice
cream stop. Yum!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

I just tuck my pant legs into my socks.

Cheers

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> In other words, bicycles aren't some strange
> exotic thing with a body clad in tight and
> colorful clothes perched on the top.

It is the exact same here. People don't
considers bikes exotic or dangerous. And they
ride with kids here as well, the kid in a chair
to the back.

I don't think people should ever hesitate to go
by bike or to be afraid of it. I just think
they should wear helmets as it is such an easy
way to protect the head if there is ever
an accident.

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 40 Blogomatic articles -

[Frank Krygowski]

Why would you claim that's more true of bicycling than most other
activities?

Most data I've been able to locate indicates that bicycling is safer (in
fatalities per kilometer traveled) than pedestrian travel. And as Phil
has pointed out, British data (at least) counts an injury from a
bicyclists slipping on ice as a bike transportation fall; but they don't
count injuries of pedestrians unless there was a vehicle involved.
Thus, they skew their bicyclist-vs-pedestrian data against the cyclists.
Yet bicycling still comes out as safer on average.

And BTW, that data refers mostly to walkers. It seems likely that
jogging or running is more dangerous than walking. Why no call for
jogging helmets?

American data (admittedly a few years old) puts the annual odds on dying
from a car crash at about 1 in 5000; but from a bike crash only 1 in
about 130,000. Why are there so few calls for motoring helmets?
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high-risk.html

Again, in the U.S., bicycling causes only about 0.6% of the traumatic
brain injury fatalities. And that low figure is not because of helmets.
Helmet use has apparently not changed the figure.

Why this insistence that bicycling is more dangerous than other common
activities?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Emanuel Berg]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
writes:

> Why this insistence that bicycling is more
> dangerous than other common activities?

By now I have come to the conclusion that it is
only confusing to compare it to other things,
especially ice hockey which is completely
different, not just the thing itself but also
the way people do it.

I don't know what data (stats) there are in my
home town, or Sweden as a whole, but there
should be as biking is everywhere, in
particular in my town which is both
a university town and also very flat.

The commune should have such data, and the
hospitals and insurance companies as well.

So I'll see if I can find it!

But this is just because it is interesting
because no data will ever support the claim
a helmet won't help when a biker hits the head
onto another vehicle or the street potentially
at a high speed...

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 40 Blogomatic articles -

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2016 11:14 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> ... no data will ever support the claim

> a helmet won't help when a biker hits the head
> onto another vehicle or the street potentially
> at a high speed...

Bike helmet standards are quite similar around the world. Their
certification tests for impact are very weak indeed. In the U.S., for
example, the test involves a magnesium model of a decapitated human head
(no body attached) hitting a flat surface at about 14 mph (6.3 m/s), or
a more pointed surface at about 10 mph (4.5 m/s). The test is a purely
linear impact, with none of the rotational acceleration that's now known
to cause most brain damage. The typical standard is a measured
deceleration of maximum 300 gees (i.e. accelerations of gravity), a
rather wild guess based on ancient 1950s science.

And despite the low standard, most helmets are barely able to pass that
test. More expensive helmets tend to pass it by smaller margins.

So what does the helmet do in, say, a head-on collision with a 30 mph
(50 kph) car? Nothing of importance. It may perhaps reduce a very
fatal head impact, making it only moderately fatal - but fatal is fatal.

In very mild falls, a helmet is very seldom necessary. People have been
walking or running and falling for eons. The skull, scalp, hair,
muscles, reflexes etc. have evolved to provide a certain level of
protection. Adding the thickness of a helmet must result in some
near-misses being converted to impacts, so for those, a helmet may even
be detrimental.

So if helmets really are to have any value, it must be for a relatively
small range of impact intensities - those where the natural anatomical
protection would fail, but not so great as to exceed the minimal
protection indicated by the standards.

Large population experience seems to indicate that range of impacts -
where a helmet might actually help - must be minor indeed. Because
despite the countless "My [broken] helmet must have saved my life!"
stories, the promised drops in serious cycling brain injuries have
simply not been occurring.

Interestingly, after decades of publishing misinformation, even the U.S.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is removing its citation
of the (ludicrous) claim that helmets prevent 85% of brain injuries. See
http://bike.risingsea.net/docs/Legislation/helmet/NHTSA-response-to-Titus.pdf


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tosspot]

If I have to I like slapwraps.

[Emanuel Berg]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
writes:

> Interestingly, after decades of publishing
> misinformation, even the U.S.
> National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration is removing its citation of
> the (ludicrous) claim that helmets prevent
> 85% of brain injuries.

Yeah, but what about non-fatal but still severe
cuts and injuries to the head and face, with
possible permanent damage to ears, eyes, nose,
and mouth, which I take it are more likely to
hit the surface first in an accident, with no
helmet to take some of the hit and lead it away
from the soft parts?

But I agree people overdramatize hitting your
head into things. For example when people hurt
their hands - then other people say "thank god
you didn't hit your head". But I'm not so sure
about that!

As for concussions I've heard they are not so
severe unless you get them over and over, and
in particular before the previous one has
healed. At least that shouldn't happen to you
because of biking, and if it does you should
probably change your style dramatically...

[AMuzi]

On 5/23/2016 10:14 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
> writes:
>
>> Why this insistence that bicycling is more
>> dangerous than other common activities?
>
> By now I have come to the conclusion that it is
> only confusing to compare it to other things,
> especially ice hockey which is completely
> different, not just the thing itself but also
> the way people do it.
>
> I don't know what data (stats) there are in my
> home town, or Sweden as a whole, but there
> should be as biking is everywhere, in
> particular in my town which is both
> a university town and also very flat.
>
> The commune should have such data, and the
> hospitals and insurance companies as well.
>
> So I'll see if I can find it!
>
> But this is just because it is interesting
> because no data will ever support the claim
> a helmet won't help when a biker hits the head
> onto another vehicle or the street potentially
> at a high speed...
>

Indeed. If I had 100mph hockey pucks coming at me with any
regularity while riding my bicycle, I would not wear a
helmet. I would stop riding.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2016 1:53 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
> writes:
>
>> Interestingly, after decades of publishing
>> misinformation, even the U.S.
>> National Highway Traffic Safety
>> Administration is removing its citation of
>> the (ludicrous) claim that helmets prevent
>> 85% of brain injuries.
>
> Yeah, but what about non-fatal but still severe
> cuts and injuries to the head and face, with
> possible permanent damage to ears, eyes, nose,
> and mouth, which I take it are more likely to
> hit the surface first in an accident, with no
> helmet to take some of the hit and lead it away
> from the soft parts?

Well, I can't say anything based on personal experience. Somehow I've
ridden from age 7 or so to my upper 60s without having that happen to me.

But I'll note that in one paper, a noted helmet-promoting researcher
claimed that common bike helmets do not protect the face sufficiently.
He (briefly) lobbied for full-face helmets for all bicyclists.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 24/05/16 01:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Interestingly, after decades of publishing misinformation, even the U.S.
> National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is removing its citation
> of the (ludicrous) claim that helmets prevent 85% of brain injuries. See
> http://bike.risingsea.net/docs/Legislation/helmet/NHTSA-response-to-Titus.pdf
>

I was riding right behind a guy who fell on Saturday. We were taking a
path that goes up a short steep hill, and so that the ramp was not too
steep, it has a zig-zag shape. It is also narrow and has a hand rail
one side and a stone wall the other. We were riding at maybe 10km/h,
and slower around the tight hairpin bend. The rider in front of me
clipped the stone wall with his front wheel and toppled over.

It didn't look like he'd hit his head to me, but evidently he had shaken
his melon. He was dazed and confused. His short term memory was
scrambled. He asked me at least 6 times how he'd crashed.

His helmet had a small scrape and a thin section of foam cracked, about
where his temple is, but hardly extensive damage.

After about 30 minutes of sitting and standing, his short term memory
was returning.

His helmet certainly didn't prevent a brain injury. Whether or how much
it helped is debatable. We know rugby and football players suffer
similar knocks on a semi regular basis.

What is obvious is that the path we were riding on would not pass as a
safe route.

--
JS

[Tim McNamara]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 10:48:20 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>
> But go by bike a lifetime you would have a hard time determine when
> everything is OK and when there is a situation, so the safe bet is to
> always use a helmet.

By the same token you should always wash your hands every five minutes,
cover yourself from head to toe when you go out in the sun, wear an air
filtration mask at all times, never walk on city streets and never drink
anything but distlled water.

Someone who has ridden a bike "a lifetime," whatever that means, is
probably going to be a better judge of "when everything is OK nd when
there is a situation" (whatever that means).

The problem with always using a helmet is that there is little evidence
that it makes the rider any safer. That's mainly because bike helmets
are constructed to be light, cool and profitable rather than protective.
The minimum standards with which they must comply (Snell, ANSI) are,
well, minimal. I won't go so far as to say that there has never been a
life saved or a brain injury prevented by a cycle helmet, because it
might have happened. I know one person who was hit by a car and a
mutual friend loudly proclaimed that his helmet saved his life. There
wasn't a scratch on it (the helmet, I mean. The rider had broken ribs,
a fractured pelvis and a broken collarbone... when cars hit you they
tend to hit you low).

But if you want to use a helmet, be my guest. I am not going to stop
you or even specifically criticize your choice to do so. Just be aware
that it almost certainly will not save your life. Heck, my wife
believes in helmets (I got her started on that back in my early bike
racing days when I was still believing the ads; she doesn't believe the
lack of evidence ) so I wear one fairly regularly, probably half of my
rides, to make her happy. A happy wife is a good thing. Wearing a
helmet bothers me not at all and, in fact, they make a much better hat
on hot sunny days than my cycling caps. With the herniated disk in my
neck, though, I have to find the very lightest one I can to avoid pretty
bad pain after a couple of hours.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2016 7:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> Wearing a
> helmet bothers me not at all and, in fact, they make a much better hat
> on hot sunny days than my cycling caps.

It's on hot, humid days that the helmet bothers me the most. No matter
what the design of sweat pads, they saturate with sweat then drip the
stuff into my eyes.

That effect is worst after cresting a tough climb. The climb produces
plenty of sweat, the pads get totally saturated; then when I pass the
crest and start the following downhill, the stuff drips and even blows
into my eyes. Riding blind is bad, and so is a fast downhill with one
hand on the bars, one hand trying to mop away sweat.

A cycling cap wicks the forehead sweat away, with no eye drips. Much
more comfortable.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 16:54:05 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> In other words, bicycles aren't some strange
>> exotic thing with a body clad in tight and
>> colorful clothes perched on the top.
>
>It is the exact same here. People don't
>considers bikes exotic or dangerous. And they
>ride with kids here as well, the kid in a chair
>to the back.
>
>I don't think people should ever hesitate to go
>by bike or to be afraid of it. I just think
>they should wear helmets as it is such an easy
>way to protect the head if there is ever
>an accident.

But I've had two fairly severe crashes. One broke my pelvis while the
latest apparently resulted in severe muscle strains, or maybe cracked
ribs, as it is now more then a week later and my back and shoulder are
still very stiff and sore.

In neither case was there any marks on the helmet what so ever.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Partially, I suspect, because there aren't, in comparison, very many
bicycle crashes. Thus no one is interested in collecting any
comprehensive information.

At one time the Maine State Police impounded every auto involved in an
accident that resulted in a death and subjected it to a very strict
mechanical inspection. As a result they were able to say that
mechanical problems was a very, very, rare cause of accidents.

As a by product of their inspection program they also were led to
suspect that many single car crashes were actually suicide."
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2016 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> At one time the Maine State Police impounded every auto involved in an
> accident that resulted in a death and subjected it to a very strict
> mechanical inspection. As a result they were able to say that
> mechanical problems was a very, very, rare cause of accidents.
>
> As a by product of their inspection program they also were led to
> suspect that many single car crashes were actually suicide."

I've had eight friends (that I recall) who died in motor vehicle
crashes. I suspect that one was a suicide - a very high speed crash
into a bridge column, driving a compact car.

BTW, I've never had a friend who died while cycling, despite over 35
years of heavy involvement in a good-sized cycling club.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tosspot]

I think he has a point there. If you are going to wear one, wear a
proper one! My mate smashed his face to blue blazes before he
discovered that full face bike helmets, while not scaring trees off, at
least give them pause for thought.

[Emanuel Berg]

James <james.e...@gmail.com> writes:

> It didn't look like he'd hit his head to me,
> but evidently he had shaken his melon. He was
> dazed and confused. His short term memory was
> scrambled. He asked me at least 6 times how
> he'd crashed.
>
> His helmet had a small scrape and a thin
> section of foam cracked, about where his
> temple is, but hardly extensive damage.
>
> After about 30 minutes of sitting and
> standing, his short term memory
> was returning.
>
> His helmet certainly didn't prevent a brain
> injury. Whether or how much it helped is
> debatable. We know rugby and football players
> suffer similar knocks on a semi
> regular basis.

Wow, interesting story!

I hope the guy is alright. I would think he
suffered a concussion and those are the things
you get in (American) football and professional
boxing, the difference is there you get them
repeatedly and then they risk turning into
permanent damage.

So FWIW I think you should encourage your
friend to relax for some time, at the very
least until symptom free and perhaps doubling
that time for good measure.

[Emanuel Berg]

Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes:

> Someone who has ridden a bike "a lifetime,"
> whatever that means, is probably going to be
> a better judge of "when everything is OK nd
> when there is a situation" (whatever that
> means).

Even if that was so, you are not alone on
the road!

But it isn't so. The most experienced people
are the most likely to have accidents, because
they do it more often than those with
less experience.

In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some of
the most experienced climbers on Mount Everest.
Yet both died from exposure and several clients
were also lost or suffered permanent damage.

Another example: When I was a kid my family
knew I guy who was a professional truck driver.
That didn't stop him from ending his days in
his truck after an accident on the road.

With biking it is likely that less experienced
people are more safe as they are not
overconfident and don't go as fast as the
experienced ones.

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 40 Blogomatic articles -

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> But I've had two fairly severe crashes.
> One broke my pelvis while the latest
> apparently resulted in severe muscle strains,
> or maybe cracked ribs, as it is now more then
> a week later and my back and shoulder are
> still very stiff and sore.
>
> In neither case was there any marks on the
> helmet what so ever.

You "have to" hit your head for the helmet to
help :)

Obviously no one claims crashing is safe with
an helmet or that the head is the only exposed
part of your body...

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> Partially, I suspect, because there aren't,
> in comparison, very many bicycle crashes.
> Thus no one is interested in collecting any
> comprehensive information.

There are probably tons of crashes that are
unrecorded. I sure didn't submit any of mine.

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 40 Blogomatic articles -

[AMuzi]

Nice overview, well written.
Be prepared for a round of insults.

[Duane]

On 24/05/2016 6:59 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> But I've had two fairly severe crashes.
>> One broke my pelvis while the latest
>> apparently resulted in severe muscle strains,
>> or maybe cracked ribs, as it is now more then
>> a week later and my back and shoulder are
>> still very stiff and sore.
>>
>> In neither case was there any marks on the
>> helmet what so ever.
>
> You "have to" hit your head for the helmet to
> help :)
>
> Obviously no one claims crashing is safe with
> an helmet or that the head is the only exposed
> part of your body...
>

Didn't hit his head so didn't need a helmet. From that, we deduce
helmets are not necessary. Duh.

On the other hand, I saw a guy go over his bars on a fast descent
Sunday. Slid head first halfway down a hill. Broken collar bone and
road rash almost everywhere but his head. Helmet had gouges in it where
it rubbed the tarmac. He didn't "hit" his head but he dragged it down
the road.

Emanuel, you're arguing with people that have a point to make. If you
choose to wear a helmet, go ahead. I do. Not a big deal. No one here
claims that they save lives though I'm sure some people claim that. I
don't insist that they don't but whatever. Preventing scalp wounds is
not a small thing. Helmet debates are a pain in the ...

[AMuzi]

OK, but if you do absolutely nothing in your life you'll die
regardless.

Probably sooner sitting in front of the devilbox than riding
your bicycle regularly. YMMV and likely will.

[Duane]

Exactly Andrew. And look at all the fun you would be missing.

[Emanuel Berg]

AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> writes:

> OK, but if you do absolutely nothing in your
> life you'll die regardless.

Indeed: "Advance too quickly, you catch up with
death. But advance too slow, death catches up
with YOU!"

> Probably sooner sitting in front of the
> devilbox than riding your bicycle regularly.
> YMMV and likely will.

When I was a programmer, which I was for
7 years, 6 months, and 12 days, I always went
to the university by bike at about 00.00, and
then worked the night there, and returned at
about 06.00 (6 AM to you Americans).
When people said my programming was good
I always said go by bike and it'll give oxygen
to your brain. And perhaps that was even true!
But I still go by bike every day tho perhaps
not with as fierce determination...

[Frank Krygowski]

The American magazine _Bicycling_ did a major article on helmets
("Senseless") in June 2013, IIRC. The most important point in the
article was that bike helmets are not working. For example, they said
that bicyclist concussions have _increased_ by 67% since bike helmets
became widely used.

www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-June-13-Helmet.pdf

Now why would helmets cause an increase in concussions? It seems
obvious to me that the thickness of the helmet provides a larger target.
In other words, some near misses of a bare head must be converted to
hits of a helmet. I think it's likely that some of those hits cause
concussions.

Since the article was published in that magazine (whose parody name is
"Buycycling") the proposed solution was to rush out and buy a brand new
helmet, with MIPS technology. That supposedly allows the outer shell to
rotate around the inner shell about 1/8" or so. They're hoping this
magic 1/8" will make helmets finally work.

BTW, the author of the article states his belief (without evidence) that
bike helmets save "countless" lives per year. He seems unaware that
pedestrian deaths have dropped as fast or faster than bicyclist deaths
since bike helmets became so popular. That's despite the scandalous
lack of pedestrian helmets.

Bike helmets do generate countless _claims_ that the helmets save lives.
Too bad there's never been a corresponding drop in bike fatalities.

Bicycling has never been a great risk for serious brain injury anyway,
compared to many other non-helmet activities. And helmets provide no
apparent drop in fatalities, but an apparent increase in concussions.
Yet everyone should wear one for "protection"? What a marketing triumph!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

As usual, there is reasonably good data indicating what you say is wrong
- not only regarding bicycling, but regarding other activities as well.

New car drivers have much higher crash rates than experienced drivers
(at least, until the diminished capabilities of elderly drivers
overpower their wisdom and experience).

New pilots have far more bad incidents than experienced ones. Why else
would a person need many flying hours to qualify as an instructor?

Kids on bikes have far more crashes than adults on bikes. College kids
on bikes have far more crashes than experienced bike club riders.

And you seem unaware that it's possible to be very experienced and NOT
be an overconfident risk taker. I know many cyclists who fit that
description. I'm one of them. (Reminder: I've had only two moving
on-road falls in well over 40 years of adult cycling. Neither fall
caused serious injury.)

There are, on occasion, bad things that happen to experienced people.
But emphasizing a single anecdote here or there ignores the much bigger
collection of real data - that is, it ignores the true picture.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Emanuel Berg]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
writes:

> Bicycling has never been a great risk for
> serious brain injury anyway, compared to many
> other non-helmet activities. And helmets
> provide no apparent drop in fatalities, but
> an apparent increase in concussions.
> Yet everyone should wear one for
> "protection"? What a marketing triumph!

Everyone protect their heads. Alpinists (both
climbers and skiers), MC bikers, arborists,
construction workers, amateur boxers, welders,
woodcutters, hockey and bandy players and tons
of other winter sports doers, the Vikings of
paleo-Scandinavia, even the knights of medieval
Europe, and space pilots of Star Wars! - and
all those helmets and masks and headgear look
different, supposedly to suit the specific
purpose - but in particular with biking it is
a capitalist scam that doesn't offer any
protection, actually making it more dangerous
to ride a bike?

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/24/2016 7:01 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>> Partially, I suspect, because there aren't,
>> in comparison, very many bicycle crashes.
>> Thus no one is interested in collecting any
>> comprehensive information.
>
> There are probably tons of crashes that are
> unrecorded. I sure didn't submit any of mine.

<sigh> There are tons of pedestrian trips, slips and falls that are
unrecorded. There are tons of scraped car fenders that are not
recorded, from parking lot accidents. There are tons of scraped knees
while playing tennis that are not recorded, tons of sprained muscles
from digging in the yard, tons of cut fingers while washing the dishes.

Bicycling is nothing special in that regard. Minor injuries are seldom
reported - unless a helicopter parent rushes a kid to the ER "just to be
sure." Why? Because the parent heard propaganda that "any fall can cause
life-threatening brain damage!!!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/24/2016 11:39 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
> writes:
>
>> Bicycling has never been a great risk for
>> serious brain injury anyway, compared to many
>> other non-helmet activities. And helmets
>> provide no apparent drop in fatalities, but
>> an apparent increase in concussions.
>> Yet everyone should wear one for
>> "protection"? What a marketing triumph!
>
> Everyone protect their heads. Alpinists (both
> climbers and skiers), MC bikers, arborists,
> construction workers, amateur boxers, welders,
> woodcutters, hockey and bandy players and tons
> of other winter sports doers, the Vikings of
> paleo-Scandinavia, even the knights of medieval
> Europe, and space pilots of Star Wars! - and
> all those helmets and masks and headgear look
> different, supposedly to suit the specific
> purpose - but in particular with biking it is
> a capitalist scam that doesn't offer any
> protection, actually making it more dangerous
> to ride a bike?

"Everyone" does not protect their heads with helmets. Pedestrians
suffer more serious brain injuries than bicyclists both in total and per
km traveled. I see none with helmets - not even those pedestrians
running or jogging along roads with motor vehicle traffic.

Motorists suffer far more brain injury deaths than pedestrians or
cyclists. The typical American is far, far more likely to die in a car
than on a bike. But only those engaged in motor racing wear helmets.
Many others rely on explosive air bags built into their cars, at much
greater cost than a simple helmet. Yet, the in-car injuries continue.

Around here, most motorcycle riders do not wear helmets. This despite
the fact that motorcycling is over 30 times as dangerous as bicycling
per hour exposure.

Pilots and passengers of recreational planes do not wear helmets, even
though fighter pilots do, and even though recreational flying is far
more dangerous than cycling.

Most construction workers do not wear helmets. Welders' helmets are not
for impact protection. And many workers' "hard hats" are used only
because of senseless regulations - for example, the workers I observed
paving the highway nearby. When they jumped out of their pickup truck,
they donned a hard hat. Why, when there is literally nothing overhead
but the sky? Is it for protection from meteorites?

Yes, the characters of Star Wars wear helmets. But when you're relying
on science fiction to make you're argument, you should realize that
you're on shaky ground.

Bicycling is not combat, no matter what the fear mongers claim.

You claimed you would look for data. For your country, try finding
information ranking the activities that cause serious brain trauma.
Which activities cause the most TBI? Where does bicycling come in that
list?

In the U.S., bicycling seldom makes the list at all. And that's not
surprising. We know that fewer than 1% of TBI fatalities are due to
cycling. The other 99% deserve much more attention. Perhaps we should
put helmets on all of them?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Emanuel Berg]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
writes:

> New car drivers have much higher crash rates
> than experienced drivers (at least, until the
> diminished capabilities of elderly drivers
> overpower their wisdom and experience).
>
> New pilots have far more bad incidents than
> experienced ones. Why else would a person
> need many flying hours to qualify as
> an instructor?
>
> Kids on bikes have far more crashes than
> adults on bikes. College kids on bikes have
> far more crashes than experienced bike
> club riders.

I don't think accidents happen because lack of
skills doing it. That might be at the
beginner's level but those "accidents" are
hopefully not from that high a hight.

After that, I think accidents happen because of
other factors - lack of sleep, intoxication,
just bad luck...

If you do something every day, no matter how
small the risk, you expose yourself much more
that that risk than a person with much less
experience, but who does it once a year.

> And you seem unaware that it's possible to be
> very experienced and NOT be an overconfident
> risk taker.

Still, a healthy man, young or old, with some
athletic ability and a more adventurous
mindset, will ride faster and at a higher risk
level than the old ladies going for groceries!

This should not be described as
"overconfidence" because almost always no
accident will happen, and it is probably even
more insecure for them to suddenly start ride
like old ladies, even so, I think they are more
exposed to risk than the ladies going much
slower and with less daring a style!

[Frank Krygowski]

So much speculation. So little data!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

I heard from another who stayed in contact that the crash victim was fine.

--
JS

[Emanuel Berg]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
writes:

> Yes, the characters of Star Wars wear
> helmets. But when you're relying on science
> fiction to make you're argument, you should
> realize that you're on shaky ground.

The helmet seems to be a very common thing in
many human pursuits and activities, thru the
ages - there are many more examples than
I mentioned: soldiers, cops (riots),
firefighters, horsemen, roofers, industrial
workers, miners, chimney sweeps, people in the
oil industry, etc.

The helmet take on many different forms to
adapt to the particular circumstances.

Except for bicycle helmets which are 1) not
needed and 2) designed so they won't work
anyway and 3) actually increases the risk?

If so, it certainly goes against my
intuition...

[Sir Ridesalot]

It might go against your intuition but helmet protection is minimal at best and in factt he standards for helmet manufacturers are lower now than they were in the 1980s and that was because those 1980s standards were so hard to meet with a helmet that would be light enough that people would actually wear it on their head. I often wear a helmet but that's primarily done for the helmet mounted mirror. I once in a tour rode with my helmet slung over my shoulder and across my back with a long strap I carry. I did that because the sweat dripping into my eyes was burning so bad i couldn't see. Some guy told me thatthe waiver I'd signed said i promised to wear a helmet for the duration of the ride. I told him i was wearing a helmet and that the waiver did not specify where I had to wear the helmet. In legalise you have to be very precise.

Helmets might help and helmets might not help. The thing to do is read what standards your helmet meets and then decide if you want to wear it.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/24/2016 6:09 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
> writes:
>
>> Yes, the characters of Star Wars wear
>> helmets. But when you're relying on science
>> fiction to make you're argument, you should
>> realize that you're on shaky ground.
>
> The helmet seems to be a very common thing in
> many human pursuits and activities, thru the
> ages - there are many more examples than
> I mentioned: soldiers, cops (riots),
> firefighters, horsemen, roofers, industrial
> workers, miners, chimney sweeps, people in the
> oil industry, etc.
>
> The helmet take on many different forms to
> adapt to the particular circumstances.
>
> Except for bicycle helmets which are 1) not
> needed and 2) designed so they won't work
> anyway and 3) actually increases the risk?
>
> If so, it certainly goes against my
> intuition...

I keep asking for data. You keep giving me intuition.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Try what is now called a "do rag" and probably used to be an "Aunt
Jemima".

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 00:13:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/23/2016 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> At one time the Maine State Police impounded every auto involved in an
>> accident that resulted in a death and subjected it to a very strict
>> mechanical inspection. As a result they were able to say that
>> mechanical problems was a very, very, rare cause of accidents.
>>
>> As a by product of their inspection program they also were led to
>> suspect that many single car crashes were actually suicide."
>
>I've had eight friends (that I recall) who died in motor vehicle
>crashes. I suspect that one was a suicide - a very high speed crash
>into a bridge column, driving a compact car.

Yes, the discussion with the State Police guy started when I commented
on a recent crash at speed into an overpass abutment.

>BTW, I've never had a friend who died while cycling, despite over 35
>years of heavy involvement in a good-sized cycling club.

I'm not sure what that proves. After all, we all know how dangerous
cycling is :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[Tim McNamara]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 08:29:45 -0400, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
wrote:

> No one here claims that they save lives though I'm sure some people
> claim that.

There are some that do in this forum and some that are even quite driven
about it.

> Preventing scalp wounds is not a small thing.

That is actually something helmets are good at if you crash and land on
your noggin.

> Helmet debates are a pain in the ...

Yes, this is true. Especially when there are just a handful of people
who keep writing the same things they've been writing for close to 20
years (like me... d'oh!).

[Tim McNamara]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 20:42:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/23/2016 7:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Wearing a helmet bothers me not at all and, in fact, they make a much
>> better hat on hot sunny days than my cycling caps.
>
> It's on hot, humid days that the helmet bothers me the most. No

> matter what the design of sweat pads, they saturate with sweat then
> drip the stuff into my eyes.

True, but I get that with cycling caps too. And the caps feel hotter
due to covering my hair and preventing airflow over my head. But if I
cut the tops off the caps for some airflow I get sunburned. 6 vs. a
half dozen. Ah, once upon a time I could wear neither hat nor helmet
and not get sunburned on the top of my head. But for the past 10 years
or so...

> That effect is worst after cresting a tough climb. The climb produces
> plenty of sweat, the pads get totally saturated; then when I pass the
> crest and start the following downhill, the stuff drips and even blows
> into my eyes. Riding blind is bad, and so is a fast downhill with one
> hand on the bars, one hand trying to mop away sweat.

I will sometimes stop for a moment and press teh sweat out of the pads.
Yuck.

> A cycling cap wicks the forehead sweat away, with no eye drips. Much
> more comfortable.

I have been known to take my cap or my helmet off when climbing in those
conditions. The cap goes in a pocket and the helmet hooks over stem and
dangles over the bars. I usually leave the cap off for the descent if
it is fast as I have had them blow off my head (I learned that in the
Alps).

[Tim McNamara]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 07:19:41 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 5/23/2016 6:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

<snip>

> Nice overview, well written.
> Be prepared for a round of insults.

LOL. I was/am. :-)

[John B.]

rOn Tue, 24 May 2016 12:55:28 +0200, Emanuel Berg

<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> Someone who has ridden a bike "a lifetime,"
>> whatever that means, is probably going to be
>> a better judge of "when everything is OK nd
>> when there is a situation" (whatever that
>> means).
>
>Even if that was so, you are not alone on
>the road!
>
>But it isn't so. The most experienced people
>are the most likely to have accidents, because
>they do it more often than those with
>less experience.

You mean like Jacques Cousteau is more likely to drown then the
average bloke? Or Michael Schumacher is more likely to have a car
accident?

>In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some of
>the most experienced climbers on Mount Everest.
>Yet both died from exposure and several clients
>were also lost or suffered permanent damage.
>

Your example has nothing to do with the ability of Hall or Fischer.
The catastrophe was caused by a blizzard that struck the mountain
while the climbers were exposed.

>Another example: When I was a kid my family
>knew I guy who was a professional truck driver.
>That didn't stop him from ending his days in
>his truck after an accident on the road.

So? I know a number of truck drivers who drove their entire working
life and died in bed. I've got a brother-in-law that drove a mail
truck until he retired at 65 years of age. Still living.

>With biking it is likely that less experienced
>people are more safe as they are not
>overconfident and don't go as fast as the
>experienced ones.
--

cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 00:09:58 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
>writes:
>
>> Yes, the characters of Star Wars wear
>> helmets. But when you're relying on science
>> fiction to make you're argument, you should
>> realize that you're on shaky ground.
>
>The helmet seems to be a very common thing in
>many human pursuits and activities, thru the
>ages - there are many more examples than
>I mentioned: soldiers, cops (riots),
>firefighters, horsemen, roofers, industrial
>workers, miners, chimney sweeps, people in the
>oil industry, etc.

I would have to argue with your examples.

Soldiers... I never saw a "soldier" wear a helmet during the almost
year and a half I spent in Vietnam, nor do I believe that any of the
"special forces" troops wear helmets in any theater.

Horsemen? Do Rodeo riders, probably the more dangerous horsy pastime,
wear helmets?

Roofers? Well, I've been seeing roofers since I was a little boy, and
in fact actually re-roofed a historical building once. No helmets.

The Oil Industry. Yup, you can't go up on the "floor" without a
helmet. Why?

The most dangerous occurrence while on the floor of a drilling rig
would be that the brake slips and the crown block comes crashing down
on your head - a great iron thing that weighs between 5,000 and 40,000
lbs. depending on the rig.

>The helmet take on many different forms to
>adapt to the particular circumstances.
>
>Except for bicycle helmets which are 1) not
>needed and 2) designed so they won't work
>anyway and 3) actually increases the risk?
>
>If so, it certainly goes against my
>intuition...

Intuition? Ever seen a Rugby, or Australian Rules, player? Big hulking
brutes dressed in shorts and not a helmet in sight.

Bicycles raced for many years without helmets but since 2003 helmets
have been mandatory. I found a list of professional cyclists who have
been killed while racing. A total of 106 riders, the first in 1894.

The numbers are, 88 riders killed in the 109 years between 1894 and
2003, and 18 killed between 2003 and the present. An average of 1.385
deaths annually for the years with enforced helmet use and for the
earlier period the average number of deaths annually is 0.807.

Truly, helmets make the cyclist safer!
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I might add that U.S. Army studies have shown that new troops have the
largest percentage of deaths in combat during the first few hours
spent under fire. Subsequent combat results in a lower percent of
fatalities.

Apparently, even in really dangerous circumstances, experience is
beneficial.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:40:50 -0500, Tim McNamara
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2016 20:42:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 5/23/2016 7:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Wearing a helmet bothers me not at all and, in fact, they make a much
>>> better hat on hot sunny days than my cycling caps.
>>
>> It's on hot, humid days that the helmet bothers me the most. No
>> matter what the design of sweat pads, they saturate with sweat then
>> drip the stuff into my eyes.
>
>True, but I get that with cycling caps too. And the caps feel hotter
>due to covering my hair and preventing airflow over my head. But if I
>cut the tops off the caps for some airflow I get sunburned. 6 vs. a
>half dozen. Ah, once upon a time I could wear neither hat nor helmet
>and not get sunburned on the top of my head. But for the past 10 years
>or so...

Black paint?

>> That effect is worst after cresting a tough climb. The climb produces
>> plenty of sweat, the pads get totally saturated; then when I pass the
>> crest and start the following downhill, the stuff drips and even blows
>> into my eyes. Riding blind is bad, and so is a fast downhill with one
>> hand on the bars, one hand trying to mop away sweat.
>
>I will sometimes stop for a moment and press teh sweat out of the pads.
>Yuck.
>
>> A cycling cap wicks the forehead sweat away, with no eye drips. Much
>> more comfortable.
>
>I have been known to take my cap or my helmet off when climbing in those
>conditions. The cap goes in a pocket and the helmet hooks over stem and
>dangles over the bars. I usually leave the cap off for the descent if
>it is fast as I have had them blow off my head (I learned that in the
>Alps).

--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

But humans frequently reason by anecdote, such as
Agostinho's death by dog:

http://www.flandriacafe.com/2010/11/joachim-agostinho-soldier.html

It's the outlier events which sell newspapers not the 100+
riders who did not die in le Tour that year.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

>> In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
>> of the most experienced climbers on Mount
>> Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
>> several clients were also lost or suffered
>> permanent damage.
>>
> Your example has nothing to do with the
> ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
> was caused by a blizzard that struck the
> mountain while the climbers were exposed.

Now:

Lat's say P is the risk of having an accident
and that is a function that indeed is reduced
with e, the number of times you've done it -
i.e., your experience.

So the risk for you to have an accident the
e'th time you do it is P(e).

The risk function reduction will be very steep
in the beginning: compared to P(1), you will be
much safer at P(2), and even safer at P(3), and
this is why beginners typically first learn in
a special setting which is more forgiving
to mistakes.

However, doing it thousands of times, there
will be virtually no improvement in safety due
to experience - say, from P(6000) to P(6001),
the risk will be in all essence the same!

So at some point e, there is virtually no gain,
on the other hand, the risk, tho perhaps very
small, still exists every time you do it.

So experienced people have accidents and that
is not because they lack experience - it is
because they are exposed to the risk, however
small, over and over!

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

>> In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
>> of the most experienced climbers on Mount
>> Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
>> several clients were also lost or suffered
>> permanent damage.
>>
> Your example has nothing to do with the
> ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
> was caused by a blizzard that struck the
> mountain while the climbers were exposed.

Well, there are many books about those events
so I think there are many views and proposed
reasons all of which may be part true...

For example, in this book:

@book{k2,
author = {Ed Viesturs; David Roberts},
ISBN = 0767932609,
publisher = {Broadway},
title = {K2: Life and Death on the World's Most Dangerous Mountain},
year = 2010
}

they say Fischer suffered from
altitude sickness.

[Sir Ridesalot]

This is sounding more and more like a poor attempt at trolling.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

[Emanuel Berg]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
writes:

> So much speculation. So little data!

Do you have any data to back up that claim, or
is it just speculation?

In Sweden there is a law bikers below 15 years
of age have helmets. (This law is never
enforced, tho riding a bike without a light is,
but not often, and it only happens when the
police makes a push for it, and stand guard
somewhere - they never do it spontaneously
which I speculate is indicative of them not
really caring.)

The helmets are "CE marked".

Some are ridiculously cheap - 100 SEK which is
~($12, £8, or €11) - but they still adheres to
the EN 1078 or EN 1080 standards - perhaps
those standards aren't that choosy, ey? :)

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 41 Blogomatic articles -

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/26/2016 4:57 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
> writes:
>
>> So much speculation. So little data!
>
> Do you have any data to back up that claim, or
> is it just speculation?
>
> In Sweden there is a law bikers below 15 years
> of age have helmets. (This law is never
> enforced, tho riding a bike without a light is,
> but not often, and it only happens when the
> police makes a push for it, and stand guard
> somewhere - they never do it spontaneously
> which I speculate is indicative of them not
> really caring.)
>
> The helmets are "CE marked".
>
> Some are ridiculously cheap - 100 SEK which is
> ~($12, £8, or €11) - but they still adheres to
> the EN 1078 or EN 1080 standards - perhaps
> those standards aren't that choosy, ey? :)

All that's very nice information, Emanuel, but way back I suggested that
despite the hype, bicycling is not a major source of serious brain
injuries. I pointed out that in the U.S., bicycling causes only about
0.6% of traumatic brain injury fatalities, and that the number
apparently hasn't been affected by the popularity of helmets.

I suggested that you look for similar data for your country. You said
(and I quote) "The commune should have such data, and the
hospitals and insurance companies as well. So I'll see if I can find it!"

Did you fail to find information on the ranked causes of traumatic brain
injury? Or are you not posting the information because it belies your
"biking is dangerous" idea?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:25:51 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>>> In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
>>> of the most experienced climbers on Mount
>>> Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
>>> several clients were also lost or suffered
>>> permanent damage.
>>>
>> Your example has nothing to do with the
>> ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
>> was caused by a blizzard that struck the
>> mountain while the climbers were exposed.
>
>Now:
>
>Lat's say P is the risk of having an accident
>and that is a function that indeed is reduced
>with e, the number of times you've done it -
>i.e., your experience.

Define "P".

>So the risk for you to have an accident the
>e'th time you do it is P(e).
>
>The risk function reduction will be very steep
>in the beginning: compared to P(1), you will be
>much safer at P(2), and even safer at P(3), and
>this is why beginners typically first learn in
>a special setting which is more forgiving
>to mistakes.
>
>However, doing it thousands of times, there
>will be virtually no improvement in safety due
>to experience - say, from P(6000) to P(6001),
>the risk will be in all essence the same!
>
>So at some point e, there is virtually no gain,
>on the other hand, the risk, tho perhaps very
>small, still exists every time you do it.
>
>So experienced people have accidents and that
>is not because they lack experience - it is
>because they are exposed to the risk, however
>small, over and over!

Ah, but "experienced people" have very few accidents. Far fewer then
inexperienced people. If your calculation were correct inexperienced
people would have fewer accidents as they engage in "whatever" less
frequently.

Proof? Well, a simple task like driving nails.

An inexperienced bloke, hired as a carpenter, will hit his thumb, or
finger, with the hammer quite frequently while the old gray headed
bloke who has spent his life building houses almost never hits his
thumb.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:26:47 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:
>
>>> In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
>>> of the most experienced climbers on Mount
>>> Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
>>> several clients were also lost or suffered
>>> permanent damage.
>>>
>> Your example has nothing to do with the
>> ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
>> was caused by a blizzard that struck the
>> mountain while the climbers were exposed.
>
>Well, there are many books about those events
>so I think there are many views and proposed
>reasons all of which may be part true...
>
>For example, in this book:
>
> @book{k2,
> author = {Ed Viesturs; David Roberts},
> ISBN = 0767932609,
> publisher = {Broadway},
> title = {K2: Life and Death on the World's Most Dangerous Mountain},
> year = 2010
> }
>
>they say Fischer suffered from
>altitude sickness.

So? I've worked jobs in the high mountains and I can assure you that
altitude sickness has nothing to do with ability.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> Ah, but "experienced people" have very few
> accidents. Far fewer then inexperienced
> people. If your calculation were correct
> inexperienced people would have fewer
> accidents as they engage in "whatever"
> less frequently.

Yes, in terms of the calculation.

In terms of reality there is also the increased
difficulty to consider, which is typically
implied when increasing your skill and getting
more experience. (Now we are taking
"experience" in the human sense and not in the
previous math example sense where it was just
doing the same over and over.)

For example mountaineering as we talked
about earlier.

If you are a Swede, you'd typically start that
with Kebnekaise which is the highest mountain
in Sweden - 2 098 m (or 6 882 ft). That isn't
very high and climbing it doesn't really
necessitate "climbing", and, if you still have
an accident, civilization isn't many scooter
hours away.

So it is a good place to be a beginner.

Then at the medium level, you do the same
thing, only in the Alps! Here, the altitude is
much worse (Mont Blanc, 4 809 meter) and there
are all kinds of technical problems not found
in the Scandinavian Mountains.

Then at, the most dedicated (or fanatic) level,
the sky is literally the limit with the
Himalaya - K2, Annapurna, etc.

So here there are three tendencies, 1) getting
exposed to the risk over and over the more you
do it, 2) the increased risk that comes with
doing evermore difficult stuff, and 3) your
increased experience to reduce the risk.
So there is a race between experience and risk,
and if risk wins - uh-oh!

> An inexperienced bloke, hired as a carpenter,
> will hit his thumb, or finger, with the
> hammer quite frequently while the old gray
> headed bloke who has spent his life building
> houses almost never hits his thumb.

What about all the people who worked in
sawmills and now have round thumbs? I don't
think all those accidents happened because of
inexperience. It was just them working there
for decades and some time or another they were
just at the wrong side of the saw blade...

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 42 Blogomatic articles -

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> writes:

> So? I've worked jobs in the high mountains
> and I can assure you that altitude sickness
> has nothing to do with ability.

Indeed: people have accidents including those
with experience and ability.

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 42 Blogomatic articles -

[John B.]

I think that you will find that people who work in saw mills - a place
that saws tree trunks up into boards - very seldom have "round thumbs.
Becoming intimately involved with a, say 50 or 60 inch, saw blade that
is spinning at, again say, 500 RPM, usually does not involve thumbs.

Heads, arms, yes. Thumbs, no.
--
cheers,

John B.