Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots.

Showing 1-351 of 351 messages
Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Garry Lee 7/15/98 12:00 AM
Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a bollard,
hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was travelling at
about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered a depressed
fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet would have
afforded excellent protection. He died.

Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no memory of it.
THe top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris suffered a fractured
wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his home in the UK.

THe crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the results
so different.

Open your minds, but not your heads.


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tim Jurik 7/15/98 12:00 AM
Although I do wear a helmet, I disagree with your statements regarding
Fabio's crash.  The crashes were not "almost identical."  Unfortunately I
think that you may have started yet another time-wasting helmet war.

Tim


Garry Lee wrote in message <6oj06v$b7u$1...@news1.news.iol.ie>...

Helmet Warriors-please read (Was: Casarteli and Boardman) Bob Schwartz 7/15/98 12:00 AM
If you simply *must* have at the helmet wars (and remember,
they're totally, completely, utterly pointless, please
consider abstaining) I have gone through the trouble of
following up Garry's horribly cross-posted basenote while
limiting the distribution to the proper newsgroup: 'rec.bicycles.soc'

Those of you that insist on wallowing in helmet threads are
urged to follow up that post rather than Garry's original
post, thus sparing us the re-re-re-re-re-hashing of what
has already gone countless times before. Garry's complete
text is there for attribution.

Bob "Wish blunt instruments worked over the net" Schwartz
bsch...@cray.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tom Kunich 7/15/98 12:00 AM
Garry Lee wrote:
>
> Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a
> bollard,  hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was
> travelling at about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered
> a depressed fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet
> would have afforded excellent protection. He died.

Gary, where did you get that description of the accident? At the time
the description was: Casartelli was descending at over 40 mph (64 kph)
when he came off. He struck the edge of a concrete castlation, that are
commonly used to restrain automobiles, with the front of his face and
pushed the cheek area back into the skull.

The described symtoms of extreme respiratory distress that were
in that article corresponded pretty well with the description of
the accident. Later an Italian doctor during an interview said that
a helmet wouldn't have helped Casartelli because the injuries were to
the front of the face, an area not protected by a helmet.

Moreover, other data suggests that perhaps over HALF of serious head
injuries sustained on bicycles are to the face. This lends further
veracity to that version of the story.

> Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a
> stone wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no
> memory of it. The top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris

> suffered a fractured wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his
> home in the UK.

Yet he seems not to show the symtoms of great accelerations on his
brain.

> The crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the
> results so different.

The crashes as I've seen described are completely different. The
helmet could have had no bearing in Casartelli's accident and it
isn't clear that the helmet lent any significant protection to
Boardman who is again out for the season with a broken wrist.

> Open your minds, but not your heads.

I am not suggesting that racers shouldn't wear helmets. What I am
suggesting is that they will lend only the most infinitessimal
protection. For Boardman that may have been enough.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/15/98 12:00 AM
Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:

>Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a bollard,
>hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was travelling at
>about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered a depressed
>fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet would have
>afforded excellent protection. He died.
>
>Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
>wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no memory of it.
>THe top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris suffered a fractured
>wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his home in the UK.
>
>THe crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the results
>so different.
>

>Open your minds, but not your heads.
>


It's no use.  The Anti Helmet Drones will now post rebuttals that will
talk about.........

1.  Wearing Helmets in your car.
2.  How do you know the guy with the fractured skull would have been
helped by the helmet?
3.  How do you know Boardman wouldn't have been perfectly fine without
a helmet
4.  Did Monica Lewinsky really do it.
5.  Is OJ innocent.


<G>


Bob Cardone


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Perry 7/15/98 12:00 AM
Tom Kunich is absolutely right. Casartelli's crash was at high speed and no
helmet would have saved him. I was in Italy at the time, and initial footage
from the scene of the accident was extremely gruesome. This differs from
what you see in FCV Tour videotape for that year. I don't think I have ever
been so shocked (there were millions of us watching that day, the telecast
was stopped as soon as he was pronounced dead). Sometimes we are placed in
circumstances where death is unavoidable. But in the mean time, we have
control over the risks we face in life. Choosing not to wear a helmet when
riding, especially with uncontrollable variables such as cars, is insane or
stupid. Any increase in the odds of surviving an accident is worth the
insignificant cost and discomfort of a helemt.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jer 7/16/98 12:00 AM
On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:03:17 GMT, Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com>
wrote:


>
>The described symtoms of extreme respiratory distress that were
>in that article corresponded pretty well with the description of
>the accident. Later an Italian doctor during an interview said that
>a helmet wouldn't have helped Casartelli because the injuries were to
>the front of the face, an area not protected by a helmet.
>
I believe those helmets those downhill single track riders wear offer
some face protection. Perhaps maybe all riders should wear like NHL
goalie masks with face protection. Personally I wear a goalie mask
whenever I am not sleeping cause I will be safer, even in bed if I am
awake as things can get a little rough in there!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com> wrote:

>> bollard,  hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was
>> travelling at about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered
>> a depressed fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet


Much Tripe snipped


>>.
>The crashes as I've seen described are completely different. The
>helmet could have had no bearing in Casartelli's accident and it
>isn't clear that the helmet lent any significant protection to
>Boardman who is again out for the season with a broken wrist.
>
>> Open your minds, but not your heads.

I knew it  <G>

Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Steuber The Interloper 7/16/98 12:00 AM
On 15 Jul 1998 19:33:51 GMT, Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> claimed or
asked:

% Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
% wall, head first.

Bob Cardone not withstanding, 35 mph is about the speed you reach if
you fall out of a third floor window.  I'm sure you aren't saying that
a bicycle helmet (or even a motorcycle helmet) will protect you
against that kind of impact.  A car feels about 40gs of deceleration
when driven into a wall at 35mph.  It uses about 1 m of crumple zone
to absorb that impact.  A helmet doesn't give you more then a couple
cm.  It seems to me that Boardman slowed down quite a bit in his skid
before hitting his head against the wall.  I'm sure the helmet helped,
but it didn't perform any miracles.

There is another account of Casarteli's crash that implies a helmet
wouldn't have helped.  Who knows?

If you feel more comfortable wearing a helmet, go ahead and wear a
helmet.  What is the big deal?

--
David Steuber
The Interloper
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.

If you can't trust an anonymous person on the Internet, who can you trust?

Helmet Warriors-please read (Was: Casarteli and Boardman) David Steuber The Interloper 7/16/98 12:00 AM
On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:41:19 -0500, Bob Schwartz <bsch...@cray.com>
claimed or asked:

% If you simply *must* have at the helmet wars (and remember,
% they're totally, completely, utterly pointless, please
% consider abstaining) I have gone through the trouble of
% following up Garry's horribly cross-posted basenote while
% limiting the distribution to the proper newsgroup: 'rec.bicycles.soc'
%
% Those of you that insist on wallowing in helmet threads are
% urged to follow up that post rather than Garry's original
% post, thus sparing us the re-re-re-re-re-hashing of what
% has already gone countless times before. Garry's complete
% text is there for attribution.

I only follow the r.b.m group.  It is all I have time for.  So, if you
don't mind, or even if you do, I followed up to r.b.m as well as
r.b.s.  I dropped the other two.  The original subject should probably
have been posted to just r.b.r because it was about a racing incident.
Racing has got to be more hazardous than regular riding because you
are pushing the edge of the envelope.

In any case, I've said all I have to say for this particular thread,
unless someone posts a compelling response.

--
David Steuber
The Interloper
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.

If you can't trust an anonymous person on the Internet, who can you trust?

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Garry Lee wrote:
>
> Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a bollard,

> hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was travelling at
> about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered a depressed
> fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet would have
> afforded excellent protection. He died.
>
> Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
> wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no memory of it.
> THe top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris suffered a fractured
> wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his home in the UK.
>
> THe crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the results
> so different.
>
> Open your minds, but not your heads.

Garry, as a doctor you should be well aware that the cheekbone is not on
the top of the head.

Both Casartelli and Boardman hit their faces, not the tops of their
heads.

Casartelli crashed descending in the Alps at something much higher than
20 mph.

Boardman hit the graound then rolled into the wall at something much
less than 35 mph.

You really don't need to distort the facts do you?

All the pictures I have seen show very little damage to the top of
Chris's helmet.

Why don't you write to the parents of Laura and tell them that their
daughter should have been wearing a helmet to watch a bike race.

ANd how is this relevant to those of us who don't cycle in close packs
at 30mph, don't descend alpine passes with a priority on speed, but
instead just pootle along, enjoying life and watching the road.

WHy did Boardman crash? He hit the wheel of someone elses bike after
hitting a broken catseye. Had he not been inches from moccasains wheel
he would still be fine.

Why did Casartelli crash? He was going too fast round a corner, ran wide
and hit the block on the edge.
He would not have crashed had he been a little more cautious in his
riding.

If you are going to try to use these two events to support universal
helmet wearing then please
1) get all the facts
2) get them right
3) show haow this is even vaguely appliccable to the everyday cyclist
who generally doesn't fall off.

If I fell off as much as Cippolini on my normal commute I'd have
constant road rash. As it is my last case of road rash was so long ago I
can't remember it (Possibly 1990, at least that is the most recent
candidate).

To put it bluntly, if you reasonably expect to crash then use some
protective equipment. If you dont expect to crash then what is the
point, or should we also go to fireproof overalls, five point seat belts
and motor racing helmets in the family car?

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Perry wrote:
> Sometimes we are placed in
> circumstances where death is unavoidable. But in the mean time, we have
> control over the risks we face in life. Choosing not to wear a helmet when
> riding, especially with uncontrollable variables such as cars, is insane or
> stupid.

I'm not sure how you get to this point. Cars are very predictable. Only
in the most exceptional circumstances will you accidentally be knocked
off if you are riding with a reasonable degree of roadcraft. Of course
all bets are off if they are trying to run you down.
Pedestrians on the other hand are well worth avoiding.

> Any increase in the odds of surviving an accident is worth the
> insignificant cost and discomfort of a helemt.

12 years of hassle between hospitalisable accidents on average?
65 lifetimes of hassle between deaths?
insignificant discomfort? I suffer when riding up steep hills towing the
trailer. Airflow doesn't exist. Helmets boil the head. In order to get
any cooling whilst wearing a helmet you have to get over a certain
threshold speed. In order to get some cooling without you can use
convection. ANd the threshold for airflow induced cooling is lower.  

I've tried it. A helmet is not for me. DOn't describe me as stupid. If
you are falling off so much that you are in need of a helmet, well maybe
you should reevaluate who is the stupid one. DOnt forget that a helmet
will help at most in about 50% of head injury accidents, and for serious
ones hardly at all.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/16/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b04b63...@news.elnet.com>,

I hadn't thought of that. Imagination _can_ be a pretty wild thing.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Asbjørn Bjørnstad 7/16/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> writes:

> WHy did Boardman crash? He hit the wheel of someone elses bike after
> hitting a broken catseye. Had he not been inches from moccasains wheel
> he would still be fine.

What I want to know is what happened to the poor cat? And would a
helmet with a visor have helped it?
--
  [asbjxrn]            [lLd25z*%ds1-100/sLlSdI%ds2-O/sSl1l2*PlL0<l]sl
                       21172310731916131628237117 3237142523312SSSLllxq

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/16/98 12:00 AM
In article <6ok07a$4n...@dragon.sk.sympatico.ca>,

  "Perry" <jollyr...@gib.com> wrote:
>
> Sometimes we are placed in circumstances where death is unavoidable.
> But in the mean time, we have control over the risks we face in life.
> Choosing not to wear a helmet when riding, especially with uncontrollable
> variables such as cars, is insane or stupid. Any increase in the odds of

> surviving an accident is worth the insignificant cost and discomfort of a
> helemt.

Let me make some comments on this section of your message Perry:

When was the last time you had a choice whether to be placed in a
position where death was unavoidable? Looking back I can't see a
single form I filled out that questioned whether I wanted to be
exposed to certain death or not.

But, that aside, if you think that cars are an uncontrolled variable
why would you go out into traffic at all? About half of all the fatalities
ARE NOT attributable to head injuries. So why would you expose yourself
to this unsufferable danger in the first place? For that matter,
why would you drive in such danger?

And finally, what leads you to think that a helmet increases your
odds in any manner at all? The landmark statistics such as those from
Australia and New Zealand and studies like Scuffham's report and
Hillman Meyer's study, all tell us that if helmets have any effect
at all for the average cyclist it is below the statistical noise.

And for Giles Morris' benefit:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life
above and beyond the call of duty. In route to assist another unit that was
engaged with the enemy, Company A came under intense enemy fire and the lead
man was killed instantly. Sgt. Baker immediately moved to the head of the
column and together with another soldier knocked out 2 enemy bunkers. When
his comrade was mortally wounded, Sgt. Baker, spotting 4 Viet Cong snipers,
killed all of them, evacuated the fallen soldier and returned to lead
repeated assaults against the enemy positions, killing several more Viet
Cong. Moving to attack 2 additional enemy bunkers, he and another soldier
drew intense enemy fire and Sgt. Baker was blown from his feet by an enemy
grenade. He quickly recovered and singlehandedly destroyed 1 bunker before
the other soldier was wounded. Seizing his fallen comrade's machine gun, Sgt.
Baker charged through the deadly fusillade to silence the other bunker. He
evacuated his comrade, replenished his ammunition and returned to the
forefront to brave the enemy fire and continue the fight. When the forward
element was ordered to withdraw, he carried 1 wounded man to the rear. As he
returned to evacuate another soldier, he was taken under fire by snipers, but
raced beyond the friendly troops to attack and kill the snipers. After
evacuating the wounded man, he returned to cover the deployment of the unit.
His ammunition now exhausted, he dragged 2 more of his fallen comrades to the
rear. Sgt. Baker's selfless heroism, indomitable fighting spirit, and
extraordinary gallantry were directly responsible for saving the lives of
several of his comrades, and inflicting serious damage on the enemy. His acts
were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and reflect
great credit upon himself and the armed forces of his country.

This is the citation used by the Congress of the United States of America
to award, via the President's hand, the Congressional Medal of Honor to
John F. Baker, Jr.

These are the people that helmet zealots feel they should be able to
order about. Wear a helmet or you're stupid. Right. No one else has
the sense to know a f&&king thing.

Makes you feel bad to think about how much you owe others Giles? So
you can call that wrapping one's self in the flag? Freedom has a
cost and too many people are only too willing to throw away those hard
earned freedoms for others.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. BiciItalia 7/16/98 12:00 AM
gary Lee wrote-"Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into
a bollard, etc....."


The point is not helmets and their ability to reduce injuries but being TOLD to
wear one by government-another errosion of personal liberty-maybe that doesn't
bother you in the UK/Ireland, but it bugs americans a lot......
G

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Asbjørn Bjørnstad wrote:
>
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> writes:
>
> > WHy did Boardman crash? He hit the wheel of someone elses bike after
> > hitting a broken catseye. Had he not been inches from moccasains wheel
> > he would still be fine.
>
> What I want to know is what happened to the poor cat? And would a
> helmet with a visor have helped it?

Not content with Boardman, this pesk cat has been chasing Cippolini 'the
Skittle' throughout the whole of the tour so far.. Why else would he
keep falling off so much?

(eller kanskje det var et kattoeye, ikke en katt...)

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Clovis Lark 7/16/98 12:00 AM
In article <35ADC348...@biotek.uio.no>,

David Martin  <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
>Casartelli crashed descending in the Alps at something much higher than
>20 mph.

Pyrenees.

>WHy did Boardman crash? He hit the wheel of someone elses bike after
>hitting a broken catseye. Had he not been inches from moccasains wheel
>he would still be fine.
>
>Why did Casartelli crash? He was going too fast round a corner, ran wide
>and hit the block on the edge.
>He would not have crashed had he been a little more cautious in his
>riding.

The peloton reported instances of elbowing and jostling on the descent.

>
>If you are going to try to use these two events to support universal
>helmet wearing then please
>1) get all the facts
>2) get them right
>3) show haow this is even vaguely appliccable to the everyday cyclist
>who generally doesn't fall off.
>

The fact is, you expose yourself to risk when you get out of bed.  People
get confused when they see pros doing something similar to what they do.  
You cannot compare incidents in the peloton to amateur riding anymore
than you can compare driving your sedan to stock car racing or McDonald's
to Haut Cuisine.  Helmets are nice to have if you wish their protection.  
They will not save your face or neck.  Making rash judgements about their
mandatory use will not improve their usage.  It is an optional thing.

I where a helmet when I ride on roads with moderate to heavy traffic, or
where the shoulders have gravel.  I do not where one on deserted farm
roads or when climbing in the Rockies (I like my brains rare, not medium
welldone).  Descending a pass where Winnebagos come lumbering up and down
causing all sort of dificulty, I wear one.  I have yet to see my life
saved by a helmet and I am going to do my best to keep it that way.

>If I fell off as much as Cippolini on my normal commute I'd have
>constant road rash. As it is my last case of road rash was so long ago I
>can't remember it (Possibly 1990, at least that is the most recent
>candidate).
>
>To put it bluntly, if you reasonably expect to crash then use some
>protective equipment. If you dont expect to crash then what is the
>point, or should we also go to fireproof overalls, five point seat belts
>and motor racing helmets in the family car?

And it comes down to this:  riders like Cippo, Zuelle, Boardman, Zabel,
Moncassin, Svorada... should where them considering the times they visit
the road up close and personal.  Riders like Virenque and Pantani,
probably not.  Ullrich should wear steel armor and have his bike equipped
with airbags when he descends.

If you feel you are better off, wear a helmet.  If it bothers you, don't.
Common sense keeps us alive.  There is no set rule that will save us.

>
>..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Clovis Lark 7/16/98 12:00 AM
In article <6ol37l$has$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,

I just read what I wrote this morning and wonder whether I may have
sustained a brain injury sometime based on my use of "where".  Doctor
help me!

> >>
>>..d
>
>

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Cásseres 7/16/98 12:00 AM
In article <35ad1017....@news.mindspring.com>,
cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:

>Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>>Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF and slid into a bollard,
>>hitting it with the top of his unprotected head. He was travelling at
>>about 20mph at the time, it's estimated. He sufferered a depressed
>>fracture of the skull, an injury against which a helmet would have
>>afforded excellent protection. He died.
>>
>>Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph and slid into a stone
>>wall, head first. He was stunned and concussed, having no memory of it.
>>THe top of his Giro helmet was badly damaged. Chris suffered a fractured
>>wrist and cuts and bruises and is back in his home in the UK.
>>
>>...

>
>It's no use.  The Anti Helmet Drones will now post rebuttals that will
>talk about.........
>
>1.  Wearing Helmets in your car.
>2.  How do you know the guy with the fractured skull would have been
>helped by the helmet?
>3.  How do you know Boardman wouldn't have been perfectly fine without
>a helmet
>4.  Did Monica Lewinsky really do it.
>5.  Is OJ innocent.


Yes, I think you've got them figured out about right.  However, the story
about Casarteli is not the one I've read: that the impact was to his face,
not the top of his head, and the medical opinion was that a helmet would
not have helped him.

--


David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Chuck Fry 7/16/98 12:00 AM
I should know better than to get involved in this stupid, interminable
thread... but here goes.

In article <35ADC5EC...@biotek.uio.no>,


David Martin  <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>I've tried it. A helmet is not for me. DOn't describe me as stupid. If
>you are falling off so much that you are in need of a helmet, well maybe
>you should reevaluate who is the stupid one. DOnt forget that a helmet
>will help at most in about 50% of head injury accidents, and for serious
>ones hardly at all.

Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
chances of avoiding another concussion.  Discomfort from heat is
temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.

It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
avoidable injury.
 -- Chuck
--
            Chuck Fry -- Jack of all trades, master of none
 chu...@chucko.com (text only please), chuc...@home.com (MIME enabled),
                  chu...@gateway.idiom.com (SPAM ONLY)

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/16/98 12:00 AM
In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,

  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>
> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> chances of avoiding another concussion.

What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?

> Discomfort from heat is temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.

Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.

> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.

Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
a shower?

And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
injury?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Joe Balenzano 7/16/98 12:00 AM
On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 20:28:01 GMT, cardone!@mindspring.com (Bob
Cardone) wrote:

>
>It's no use.  The Anti Helmet Drones will now post rebuttals that will
>talk about.........
>
>1.  Wearing Helmets in your car.
>2.  How do you know the guy with the fractured skull would have been
>helped by the helmet?
>3.  How do you know Boardman wouldn't have been perfectly fine without
>a helmet
>4.  Did Monica Lewinsky really do it.
>5.  Is OJ innocent.
>
>
><G>
>
>
>Bob Cardone

You forgot to add if JFK was wearing a helmet, he would be alive today
and on Larry King Live discussing the sexual perversions of our
presidents, past and present.  

--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to : Jo...@ntplx.net

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Rinneman 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Garry Lee wrote:
>

zzz................

> Open your minds, but not your heads.

Garry, check your newsreader preferences. I'm assuming that you also
wanted to cross-post this to alt.philosophy.debate, but it must have
been cut off. Perhaps your newsreader limits cross-posting to four
groups maximum, I'd check into this. If not, next time please try to add
in alt.usenet.kooks , alt.fan.banacek and alt.fan.karl-malden.nose as
well. These are discussions that the usenet community simply Must hear.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wayne Pein 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Chuck Fry wrote:

> I should know better than to get involved in this stupid, interminable
>
> thread... but here goes.

> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a


> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> chances of avoiding another concussion.  Discomfort from heat is

> temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
>
> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.
>

If you knew how to ride a bike properly, you wouldn't havebeen within a
doors width of the parked cars in the first place.
Basic rookie mistake you made.

Wayne


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. dha...@iname.com 7/16/98 12:00 AM
In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> I should know better than to get involved in this stupid, interminable
> thread... but here goes.
>
> In article <35ADC5EC...@biotek.uio.no>,
> David Martin  <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
> >I've tried it. A helmet is not for me. DOn't describe me as stupid. If
> >you are falling off so much that you are in need of a helmet, well maybe
> >you should reevaluate who is the stupid one. DOnt forget that a helmet
> >will help at most in about 50% of head injury accidents, and for serious
> >ones hardly at all.
>
> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> chances of avoiding another concussion.  Discomfort from heat is
> temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
>
> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.
>  -- Chuck

avoidable ?  do you mean like getting doored while passing too closely
to parked cars ?

--
    --dph.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Howard Gutnick 7/16/98 12:00 AM
This pro/anti helmet argument/debate is really becoming counterproductive
and just cluttering the ng. Those who are pro will continue to be pro (I am
pro) and those anti will continue to be anti. I don't think anyone's mind
will be changed. I hope those who are anti always stay upright and not have
to tempt the fate that they may be wrong and that a helmet does actually
protect.

When I see a post or new thread that is related to the topic, I have been
marking it as read and moving on. Let's officially declare this thread as
dead and move on.

Howard
--
Howard Gutnick
hgut...@series2000.com
www.earaces.com


Clovis Lark wrote in message <6ol7ro$hv5$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>In article <6ol37l$has$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>Clovis Lark <cl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>In article <35ADC348...@biotek.uio.no>,
>>David Martin  <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>Casartelli crashed descending in the Alps at something much higher than
>>>20 mph.
>>
>>Pyrenees.
>>
>>>WHy did Boardman crash? He hit the wheel of someone elses bike after
>>>hitting a broken catseye. Had he not been inches from moccasains wheel
>>>he would still be fine.
>>>
>>>Why did Casartelli crash? He was going too fast round a corner, ran wide
>>>and hit the block on the edge.
>>>He would not have crashed had he been a little more cautious in his
>>>riding.
>>
>>The peloton reported instances of elbowing and jostling on the descent.
>>
>>>
>>>If you are going to try to use these two events to support universal
>>>helmet wearing then please
>>>1) get all the facts
>>>2) get them right
>>>3) show haow this is even vaguely appliccable to the everyday cyclist
>>>who generally doesn't fall off.
>>>
>>
>>The fact is, you expose yourself to risk when you get out of bed.  People
>>get confused when they see pros doing something similar to what they do.
>>You cannot compare incidents in the peloton to amateur riding anymore
>>than you can compare driving your sedan to stock car racing or McDonald's
>>to Haut Cuisine.  Helmets are nice to have if you wish their protection.
>>They will not save your face or neck.  Making rash judgements about their
>>mandatory use will not improve their usage.  It is an optional thing.
>>
>>I where a helmet when I ride on roads with moderate to heavy traffic, or
>>where the shoulders have gravel.  I do not where one on deserted farm
>>roads or when climbing in the Rockies (I like my brains rare, not medium
>>welldone).  Descending a pass where Winnebagos come lumbering up and down
>>causing all sort of dificulty, I wear one.  I have yet to see my life
>>saved by a helmet and I am going to do my best to keep it that way.
>>
>>>If I fell off as much as Cippolini on my normal commute I'd have
>>>constant road rash. As it is my last case of road rash was so long ago I
>>>can't remember it (Possibly 1990, at least that is the most recent
>>>candidate).
>>>
>>>To put it bluntly, if you reasonably expect to crash then use some
>>>protective equipment. If you dont expect to crash then what is the
>>>point, or should we also go to fireproof overalls, five point seat belts
>>>and motor racing helmets in the family car?
>>
>>And it comes down to this:  riders like Cippo, Zuelle, Boardman, Zabel,
>>Moncassin, Svorada... should where them considering the times they visit
>>the road up close and personal.  Riders like Virenque and Pantani,
>>probably not.  Ullrich should wear steel armor and have his bike equipped
>>with airbags when he descends.
>>
>>If you feel you are better off, wear a helmet.  If it bothers you, don't.
>>Common sense keeps us alive.  There is no set rule that will save us.
>
>I just read what I wrote this morning and wonder whether I may have
>sustained a brain injury sometime based on my use of "where".  Doctor
>help me!
>
>> >>
>>>..d
>>
>>
>
>

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Thomas Ahart 7/16/98 12:00 AM

David Martin wrote:

> Garry Lee wrote:
> >
> > Casarteli came off his bike on a bend in the TDF

<snip>

> > Chris Boardman crashed

<snip>

> > THe crashes are almost identical, the impact area identical, the results
> > so different.
> >
> > Open your minds, but not your heads.
>
> Garry, as a doctor you should be well aware

<snip>

> He would not have crashed had he been a little more cautious in his
> riding.
>
> If you are going to try to use these two events to support universal
> helmet wearing then please
> 1) get all the facts
> 2) get them right
> 3) show haow this is even vaguely appliccable to the everyday cyclist
> who generally doesn't fall off.
>
> If I fell off as much as Cippolini on my normal commute I'd have
> constant road rash. As it is my last case of road rash was so long ago I
> can't remember it (Possibly 1990, at least that is the most recent
> candidate).
>
> To put it bluntly, if you reasonably expect to crash then use some
> protective equipment. If you dont expect to crash then what is the
> point, or should we also go to fireproof overalls, five point seat belts
> and motor racing helmets in the family car?
>
> ..d

Nobody really expects accidents, but they happen just the same.  In a car,
seatbelts save lives, on a bicycle, helmets save lives.  People who want to
survive accidents can improve their chances by using these devices.  It's
proven.

The medical professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts".  Law enforcement
professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts.  Independent testing
organizations say "wear helmets and seatbelts".  People who know accident
survivors say "wear helmets and seatbelts".  People who know people that have
died in accidents say: "I wish he was wearing his helmet or his seatbelt."

But, they are probably wrong.  After all, they didn't ask you for your opinion
on the matter, and that's what really counts, right?


Tom

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Thomas Ahart <aha...@mail.is.removethis.temple.edu> wrote:


They won't like your response Tom, it makes too much sense.  :)


Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Chuck Fry 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Aw shit, I *knew* I shouldn't have chimed in...

In article <6ollau$em5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,


 <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
>In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
>  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
>> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
>> chances of avoiding another concussion.
>
>What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
>avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?

Show me the numbers, then I'll decide for myself.

>> Discomfort from heat is temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
>
>Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.

Can you demonstrate that helmets cause or exacerbate heat stroke?

And while this might affect my decision on a hot day, it isn't a factor
in cooler weather.

>> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>> avoidable injury.
>
>Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
>if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
>a shower?

Not at all -- assuming I were so foolish as to practice some risky
activity without taking precautions known to minimize the risks.

>And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
>injury?

Via my health and auto insurance payments, and taxes, of course.  Doesn't
everyone?

 -- Chuck
--
            Chuck Fry -- Jack of all trades, master of none
 chu...@chucko.com (text only please), chuc...@home.com (MIME enabled),
                  chu...@gateway.idiom.com (SPAM ONLY)

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/16/98 12:00 AM
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
>  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>>
>> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
>> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
>> chances of avoiding another concussion.
>
>What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
>avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
>
>> Discomfort from heat is temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
>
>Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
>


What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
Stroke?  You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????

Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
cooler than with no helmet.

>> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>> avoidable injury.
>
>Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
>if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
>a shower?
>
>And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
>injury?
>


You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
cigarettes,  or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve  brain
injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
us have to pay for someones stupidity?  If my neighbor smokes in bed
and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
don't think so!

Bob

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Pete 7/16/98 12:00 AM
<why am I doing this?>
--
p...@visi.net
Thomas Ahart wrote in message
<35AE5B0D...@mail.is.removethis.temple.edu>...

>
>Nobody really expects accidents, but they happen just the same.  In a car,
>seatbelts save lives, on a bicycle, helmets save lives.  People who want to
>survive accidents can improve their chances by using these devices.  It's
>proven.
>

People who REALLY want to survive ride in such a manner as to reduce the
possibility of crashing.

>The medical professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts".  Law
enforcement
>professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts.  Independent testing
>organizations say "wear helmets and seatbelts".  People who know accident
>survivors say "wear helmets and seatbelts".  People who know people that
have
>died in accidents say: "I wish he was wearing his helmet or his seatbelt."

The sticker on your new bike says "always wear your helmet" (as well as
"Don't ride at night")

Strange. Not one of those oft repeated statements mentions anything about
"ride safely".

(paraphrasing of sentiments expressed in here lately)
"I was riding next to a line of cars and got doored. Glad I was wearing my
helmet"
"I was crossing an intersection with my head down and got broadsided. Glad I
was wearing my helmet"
"I did an endo off a 15' cliff and hit a tree. Glad I was wearing my helmet"
"I was riding down the wrong side of the street and this car turned out in
front of me. Wish I had a helmet on"

DUH. If you ride in such a manner as to put yourself in those
situations...you NEED a helmet.

Pete

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Pete 7/16/98 12:00 AM

(groups trimmed to the necessary)
--
p...@visi.net
Bob Cardone wrote in message <35ae615e...@news.mindspring.com>...
>tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>>> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>>> avoidable injury.
>>
>>Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
>>if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
>>a shower?
>>
>>And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
>>injury?
>>
>
>
>You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
>insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
>have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
>I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
>cigarettes,  or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve  brain
>injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
>own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
>us have to pay for someones stupidity?  If my neighbor smokes in bed
>and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
>don't think so!
>
>Bob

Or if you eat red meat. Its bad for you and causes cancer.
....or if you're old and fall down the stairs. Grandma should have known
better than to go upstairs.
....or don't drink 8 glasses of water a day
....or don't exercise "enough". You MUST get your heart rate up to 190 5
times a week.
....or go alpine skiing. Obviously too dangerous.
....or ride a motorcycle. Insanity. Only Hell's Angels do that. And we all
know how crazy they are.
....or ride a bicycle. After all...if you need to wear a helmet to do it, it
MUST be dangerous

Lets all just sit home in front of the TV. At least THATS not dangerous. Oh
wait.....TV causes violence in kids.


How far down that road do you want to go, Bob?

Pete

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Chuck Fry 7/16/98 12:00 AM
In article <6oln3i$h3i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,  <dha...@iname.com> wrote:
>In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
>  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>> I should know better than to get involved in this stupid, interminable
>> thread... but here goes.

And I'm still regretting it, but stupidly continuing to follow it up...

>> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
>> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
>> chances of avoiding another concussion.  Discomfort from heat is

>> temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
>>
>> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>> avoidable injury.
>>  -- Chuck
>
>avoidable ?  do you mean like getting doored while passing too closely
>to parked cars ?

Touche'.

Would it do me any good to point out that this happened 24-1/2 years
ago, when I was a high school student, and decent bike helmets (let
alone mandatory helmet laws) did not exist?

People make mistakes, and accidents do happen despite our best efforts.
The human head is a fragile thing and IMHO worth protecting, even if
that protection is less than perfect.  I feel a helmet improves my odds
of avoiding head injuries.  That's why I always wear one when riding.

 -- Chuck
--
            Chuck Fry -- Jack of all trades, master of none
 chu...@chucko.com (text only please), chuc...@home.com (MIME enabled),
                  chu...@gateway.idiom.com (SPAM ONLY)

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/16/98 12:00 AM
"Pete" <p...@visi.net> wrote:

When you examine "accidents" you will always run into mental lapses
and just plain stupid moves by people. If people didn't do dumb
things, we wouldn't need ambulances and ERs and all the rest.  I am a
Pilot and have been reading aviation case histories for years and
years. Almost everyone I read including some of the Major Airlines
Mishaps, I say to myself, " That certainly was a stupid thing for the
Pilot to do".  But, we all make mistakes, even the most highly
trained. So a partial solution is to design backup systems. Something
to save your butt when you screw up.  When I started flying I did
everything to minimize my risks. Always use a check list ( people
crash because they didn't use a check list), don't fly in bad weather
( people crash in weather realted accidents) etc...

A great " backup system" for a cyclist to help minimize risk is to
take a course such as Effective Cycling . Another "backup system" is a
Helmet.  It is not meant to take the place of careful riding, it is an
adjunct to careful riding.  You don't take a course in Pilot Safety
and then because you completed that course start having a couple of
Martinis before you fly and not buckle your seat belt.  Wearing your
seatbelt in an aircraft will not guarantee safety if the pilot is
drunk, but if he crash lands, it might save you butt.

In the same way, all the imperfect people that ride bicycles, and make
mistakes on them , might be helped when their helmet hits that tree
instead of their skull, when they do something stupid on the bike.
Remember  all us humans seem to do something Stupid from time to time
( Unless of course you are perfect :)  ) .  The Helmet is not a
guarantee of safety, the only thing that is guaranteed in life, is
that someday you will die.  I'm just not in a big hurry to get there,
so I will continue to utilize my backup system and wear my helmet.

Bob Cardone


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/16/98 12:00 AM
"Pete" <p...@visi.net> wrote:

>
>(groups trimmed to the necessary)
>--
>p...@visi.net
>Bob Cardone wrote in message <35ae615e...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
>>>> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
>>>> avoidable injury.
>>>
>>>Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
>>>if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
>>>a shower?
>>>
>>>And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
>>>injury?
>>>
>>
>>
>>You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
>>insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
>>have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
>>I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
>>cigarettes,  or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve  brain
>>injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
>>own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
>>us have to pay for someones stupidity?  If my neighbor smokes in bed
>>and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
>>don't think so!
>>
>>Bob
>
>Or if you eat red meat. Its bad for you and causes cancer.


True, that's why I don't eat red Meat. That doesn't even address the
problem of Ecoli.    


>....or if you're old and fall down the stairs. Grandma should have known
>better than to go upstairs.

If Grandma and ridden her bike 10-15 miles a day, she wouldn't have
problems with the stairs.  I am a grandfather with 4 grandchildren and
I run up and down the stairs in my house ( cheaper than a stair
climber machine)


>....or don't drink 8 glasses of water a day

I drink at least 8.  Forestalls Kidney problems.

>....or don't exercise "enough". You MUST get your heart rate up to 190 5
>times a week.


Bunk..  All you need is 65-80% of your max heart rate 3-4 times a week
to stay in shape.


>....or go alpine skiing. Obviously too dangerous.

After I broke my collar bone, I quit skiing.


>....or ride a motorcycle. Insanity. Only Hell's Angels do that. And we all
>know how crazy they are.


In Atlanta where I live, It is dangerous. I have several friends that
road motorcycles until they moved to Atlanta. They sold them shortly
after.


>....or ride a bicycle. After all...if you need to wear a helmet to do it, it
>MUST be dangerous

Like wearing a seatbelt in a car, talking a polio shot, eating high
fiber diet. The name of the game is to minimize risk in whatever you
are doing. Life is dangerous. Everything that lives will die someday.
You just have to minimize your risks to stall that day off.


>
>Lets all just sit home in front of the TV. At least THATS not dangerous. Oh
>wait.....TV causes violence in kids.


TV is horrible.... I believe it does cause violent behaviour in kids.
Look at all the shootings in school now.

>
>
>How far down that road do you want to go, Bob?
>
>Pete
>
>
Actually, tonight I am riding down the road about 27 miles on my bike
with my helmet on. I am going to practise my effective cycling
principles once again including wearing a helmet.

Then I am going to go home and have a dinner with Brown rice, broiled
salmon and a salad. .  Real Healthy Stuff.  

Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jim West 7/16/98 12:00 AM
>On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 20:28:01 GMT, cardone!@mindspring.com (Bob
>Cardone) wrote:
>
>>
>>It's no use.  The Anti Helmet Drones will now post rebuttals that will
>>talk about.........
>>
>>1.  Wearing Helmets in your car.
>>2.  How do you know the guy with the fractured skull would have been
>>helped by the helmet?
>>3.  How do you know Boardman wouldn't have been perfectly fine without
>>a helmet
>>4.  Did Monica Lewinsky really do it.
>>5.  Is OJ innocent.


You forgot "Just never make a mistake or have an accident like little 'ol
superhuman me."  (Appeared just few posts after this one on my server. What
an incrdible  noncoincidence.)

jw
--
Jim West                                  jw...@emag.ecen.okstate.edu
Associate Professor                       jw...@master.ceat.okstate.edu
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Fyodor Dostoyfredsky 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Howard Gutnick (hgut...@series2000.com) wrote:
: This pro/anti helmet argument/debate is really becoming counterproductive

: and just cluttering the ng. Those who are pro will continue to be pro (I am
: pro) and those anti will continue to be anti. I don't think anyone's mind
: will be changed.

Which is more of a malaise -

1) a debate on helmets
2) a debate on abortion


Henry
fre...@connectnet.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Eric Bazan 7/16/98 12:00 AM

   Blah. Blah. Blah.

   Is this the best you people can do - argue endlessly
about helmets?

   What a bunch of weenies.


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Andreas Peeck 7/16/98 12:00 AM
Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:

> Casarteli ...
> hitting it with the top of his unprotected head.

This is a lie, it was his face (where no (bike)helmet would protect
him), not the top.
 
> He was travelling at
> about 20mph at the time, it's estimated.

Estimated! It was downhill, why only 20mph? Why not 40 or 50mph?

> ... an injury against which a helmet would have
> afforded excellent protection.

This is a lie. No serious man would think, a (bike)helmet could help you
in such a Situation.

>He died.

That is true. Very sad.
But the fact, that you want to exploit his death for your religious war,
shows, that you are not a god man.

> Chris Boardman crashed at a peleton speed of 35mph

Estimated? Or wasn´t it at 30mph?

> and slid into a stone
> wall,

Wall! No corner, no edge, like in Casartellis case.

> head first.

Did you see this? I saw him going with his legs first.
I suppose, his Head injury came from a collision with the Street.

Without helmet he possibly would not have touched the Street with his
head (you know, the helmet makes your head bigger, then your instinkt
knows).
It is even possible that he would have been more concentrated without
the helmet (you know, the heat under the helmet is not good for your
brain).
But we don´t know. We have no second world to test ist.

> THe crashes are almost identical,

No, they are not.


greetings to the other readers
AP

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Roger Marquis 7/17/98 12:00 AM
In rec.bicycles.racing Chuck Fry <chu...@best.com> wrote:
>The human head is a fragile thing and IMHO worth protecting, even if
>that protection is less than perfect.  I feel a helmet improves my odds
>of avoiding head injuries.  That's why I always wear one when riding.

Nobody can argue with that Chuck.  Wear whatever makes you comfortable,
it's your choice, it's your right and it's nobody else's business
really.

Helmet nazi's on the other hand, take it upon themselves to harass
*other* cyclists.  If the helmet nazi's in this country would mind
their own business, as they do everywhere else in the world, and let
people decide for themselves this wouldn't even be an issue.

Roger Marquis

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Pete 7/17/98 12:00 AM

Bob Cardone wrote in message <35ae69f1...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Pete" <p...@visi.net> wrote:
>

>>Strange. Not one of those oft repeated statements mentions anything about
>>"ride safely".
>>
>
>When you examine "accidents" you will always run into mental lapses
>and just plain stupid moves by people. If people didn't do dumb
>things, we wouldn't need ambulances and ERs and all the rest.  I am a
>Pilot and have been reading aviation case histories for years and
>years. Almost everyone I read including some of the Major Airlines
>Mishaps, I say to myself, " That certainly was a stupid thing for the
>Pilot to do".  But, we all make mistakes, even the most highly
>trained. So a partial solution is to design backup systems. Something
>to save your butt when you screw up.  When I started flying I did
>everything to minimize my risks. Always use a check list ( people
>crash because they didn't use a check list), don't fly in bad weather
>( people crash in weather realted accidents) etc...
>

As a retired USAF ground crew, I saw LOTS of stupid accidents. Pilots and
maintainers. "He did WHAT?"

>A great " backup system" for a cyclist to help minimize risk is to
>take a course such as Effective Cycling . Another "backup system" is a
>Helmet.  It is not meant to take the place of careful riding, it is an
>adjunct to careful riding.  You don't take a course in Pilot Safety
>and then because you completed that course start having a couple of
>Martinis before you fly and not buckle your seat belt.  Wearing your
>seatbelt in an aircraft will not guarantee safety if the pilot is
>drunk, but if he crash lands, it might save you butt.
>

And here's where you and I (mostly) agree. If you notice above and from the
past...my main complaint is NOT with people who wear helmets...its with
statements made by people and organizations that, through ommission or some
agenda, leave out riding safely.

One of my kids bikes has a sticker on it. "Don't ride at night". Nothing
else. No  "Use a light at night"...or...."Ride safely at night" Just DON'T
DO IT. In my mind...thats not a far leap from "You *must* wear a helmet".
Granted, the bike companies are not in the business of instruction. But why
not? Picture this...Trek or Giant has a series of classes all around the
country. Kids get to use cool, kid size MTB's and maybe learn some stuff.
They (and parents) would lean a little more towards that company when
buying. (are you listening guys?)

The first and best 'backup system' is learning to ride safely and
effectively. Given the dismal state of cycling practices here and
abroad.....the best defense against injury is just that. Learning to ride
safely. Which does not necessarily = slowly. The very low rate of cycling
injuries, even with the crappy riding habits, seems to me to indicate that
if you ride effectively...your chances of being injured are much, much lower
than the already low average. Not zero, mind you...but better than just
about anything else around.

>In the same way, all the imperfect people that ride bicycles, and make
>mistakes on them , might be helped when their helmet hits that tree
>instead of their skull, when they do something stupid on the bike.
>Remember  all us humans seem to do something Stupid from time to time
>( Unless of course you are perfect :)  ) .  The Helmet is not a
>guarantee of safety, the only thing that is guaranteed in life, is
>that someday you will die.  I'm just not in a big hurry to get there,
>so I will continue to utilize my backup system and wear my helmet.

More power to you.

Pete
sometimes yes...sometimes no

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Pete 7/17/98 12:00 AM

Bob Cardone wrote in message <35ae6e91...@news.mindspring.com>...

>>Or if you eat red meat. Its bad for you and causes cancer.
>
>
>True, that's why I don't eat red Meat. That doesn't even address the
>problem of Ecoli.
>
>
>>....or if you're old and fall down the stairs. Grandma should have known
>>better than to go upstairs.
>
>If Grandma and ridden her bike 10-15 miles a day, she wouldn't have
>problems with the stairs.  I am a grandfather with 4 grandchildren and
>I run up and down the stairs in my house ( cheaper than a stair
>climber machine)
>
>>....or don't drink 8 glasses of water a day
>
>I drink at least 8.  Forestalls Kidney problems.
>
>>....or don't exercise "enough". You MUST get your heart rate up to 190 5
>>times a week.
>
>
>Bunk..  All you need is 65-80% of your max heart rate 3-4 times a week
>to stay in shape.


Yes, but someone else making the rules may subscribe to a different level.

>>....or go alpine skiing. Obviously too dangerous.
>
>After I broke my collar bone, I quit skiing.
>

After I broke my leg, my mom said no more. Next winter I was back out there.

>TV is horrible.... I believe it does cause violent behaviour in kids.
>Look at all the shootings in school now.


Actually, no. If I'm not mistaken, shootings in schools have gone down over
the last decade. Its only publicized cause now its spread out into the
suburb and rural areas. When it was only in the inner city, no one took much
notice.

>Then I am going to go home and have a dinner with Brown rice, broiled
>salmon and a salad. .  Real Healthy Stuff.


I hope you realize that most of my 'situations' were in jest. But once you
go down that slippery slope, you may end up in a completely different place
than you wanted to be.
If you start restricting health care based on not performing semi arbitrary
levels of activity..or witholding care from people who engage in activities
that are 'different', everyone loses.

Thank you, Bob, for increasing my insurance costs. Don't you know that the
longer people live, the more they'll cost eventually?

Pete
live long and prosper....

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/17/98 12:00 AM
Chuck Fry wrote:

> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> chances of avoiding another concussion.  Discomfort from heat is
> temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
>
> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.


I'm a little unclear about this. How does a helmet stop you getting
doored?

Can I suggest that it is not the helmet that prevents the injuries, but
not being in door range. I know this may sound really off the wall to
some people, but not having the accident (for avoidable accidents like
running into parked cars, or such like) is a far better and cheaper
method of not having to pay for injuries.

Actually, I think I see. The car occupant who will otherwise open the
door decides that a helmet will damage their car whereas the naked head
won't, so stops from opening it...

Clear as mud.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/17/98 12:00 AM
Bob Cardone wrote:
> >
> >> Discomfort from heat is temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
> >
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
> >
>
> What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
> Stroke?  You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????

Funny you should mention the army, an officer cadet died of heat stroke
at sandhurst a few days ago. It wasn't particularly hot either.

>
> Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
> cooler than with no helmet.

You do of course have references for that assertion. If so I would love
to see them. (This is an honest request, not a debating ploy)

To be perfectly honest I do not beliee this one iota. It is a common
'factoid' but has not had much basis in science. (I'm interested in the
5-15km/h range, above that speed the helmet doesn't bother me much.

>
> >> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> >> avoidable injury.

>

> You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
> insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
> have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
> I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
> cigarettes,  or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve  brain
> injuries, lung cancer etc...


The question is how does CHuck pay for my costs. I am not in the US but
in Europe. As far as I know there is no financial link between my
healthcare costs and US insurance companies.
Maybe you could enlighten me.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/17/98 12:00 AM
In article <35AE405C...@columbia.edu>,
  Dave Rinneman <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> Garry, check your newsreader preferences. I'm assuming that you also
> wanted to cross-post this to alt.philosophy.debate, but it must have
> been cut off. Perhaps your newsreader limits cross-posting to four
> groups maximum, I'd check into this. If not, next time please try to add
> in alt.usenet.kooks , alt.fan.banacek and alt.fan.karl-malden.nose as
> well. These are discussions that the usenet community simply Must hear.

Wait a minute: I may not agree with Garry's ideas but we have discussed
many issues with him. His beliefs are tightly held and are honestly
come by. And he cycles a great deal -- more than me and maybe more
than you.

Disagree with him if you want, but leave the ridicule for the idiots that
inhabit the net.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/17/98 12:00 AM
In article <35AE5B0D...@mail.is.removethis.temple.edu>,

  aha...@mail.is.removethis.temple.edu wrote:
>
> Nobody really expects accidents, but they happen just the same.  In a car,
> seatbelts save lives, on a bicycle, helmets save lives.  People who want to
> survive accidents can improve their chances by using these devices.  It's
> proven.

1) I expect accidents all the time and take actions to prevent them.
2) Full model studies of bicycle helmets and several statistical
analysis of accident rates over the years show no change whatsoever
in the injury rates with and without helmets.
3) You say that helmet efficacy is proven -- where?

> The medical professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts".

They also used to bleed people.

> Law enforcement professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts.

And an interesting thing was that while they were promoting helmet
laws in this state the Highway Patrol, which was appearing at every
helmet law hearing, were issuing their motorcycle patrolmen helmets
lined with _cork_ that were completely useless.

> Independent testing organizations say "wear helmets and seatbelts".

Please give us more information on this. Do you mean those agencies that
quote the Riverview Study which was funded indirectly by Bell Sports and
claimed that 85% of all head injuries would be prevented by wearing a
helmet?

> People who know accident survivors say "wear helmets and seatbelts".

I know many people who suffered head injuries in automobiles that might
very well have been prevented by wearing a helmet. Not one of them
insists that people wear a helmet in their car.

> People who know people that have died in accidents say: "I wish he was
> wearing his helmet or his seatbelt."

And that therefore proves that helmets would have prevented the deaths?

> But, they are probably wrong.  After all, they didn't ask you for your
> opinion on the matter, and that's what really counts, right?

At least I have bothered to study the matter before I tried the tear
jerking stories Tom. You have read a helmet ad and other stories funded
by helmet manufacturers. You seem convinced that helmets work. Fine
believe anything you want. But it ain't true.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/17/98 12:00 AM
In article <6olno3$hfo$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,

  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> Aw shit, I *knew* I shouldn't have chimed in...
>
> In article <6ollau$em5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>  <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
> >
> >What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
> >avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
>
> Show me the numbers, then I'll decide for myself.

The studies have been cited here many times. Try "Trends in Cycle
Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use" by P.Scuffham, Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, no.1, pp.1-9,1997

This is pretty much the landmark study since it was run by a strongly
pro-helmet group that checked their figures again and again trying
to find any errors and concluded that helmets have no effect for
general riding injuries.

> Can you demonstrate that helmets cause or exacerbate heat stroke?

I suppose the testimoney from thousands of cyclists is pretty much
worthless in that regard. Even if helmets didn't add to the problem
many cyclist strongly believe that they do. Even though I wear a helmet,
I have found that often while climbing on a hot windless day that I
cannot bear a helmet. I have had heat prostration in the past and
recognize the leading symptoms and am not about to take any chances.
In these cases, when I remove the helmet, the symptoms are immediately
lessened.

> >Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
> >if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
> >a shower?
>
> Not at all -- assuming I were so foolish as to practice some risky
> activity without taking precautions known to minimize the risks.

You just don't get it do you? Riding in a car is TWICE as dangerous
as riding on a bicycle per hour of travel. Walking is FOUR TIMES
as dangerous.

Bicycling is the safest form of personal transport. It isn't dangerous.
Just riding in a car is more dangerous than just riding your bike.
Want the figures?

                           ESTIMATE OF FATAL RISK BY ACTIVITY>
Activity                 # Fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hours
--------                 -----------------------------------------
Skydiving                                     128.71
General Aviation                               15.58
On-road Motorcycling                            8.80
Scuba Diving                                    1.98
Living (all causes of death)                    1.53
Swimming                                        1.07
Snowmobiling                                     .88
Passenger cars                                   .47
Water skiing                                     .28
Bicycling                                        .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines)             .15
Hunting                                          .08
Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights   .035
Home Living (active)                             .027
Traveling in a School Bus                        .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire                .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping)         .014
Residential Fire                                 .003>

Data compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., published in
Design News, 10-4-93

Using data from the Effective Cycling by John Forester, you can
calculate that if you are an experienced cyclist and follow the
proper rules of the road and are a defensive rider, you can at
least increase your safety by a factor of four or five.

That means that you stand about as much chance of dying from
cosmic rays as from riding a bicycle.

BICYCLING IS ONE OF THE SAFEST THINGS YOU CAN DO IN YOUR LIFE!

> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
>
> Via my health and auto insurance payments, and taxes, of course.  Doesn't
> everyone?

Excuse me Chuck, but you are completely wrong. Consider: thousands and
thousands of cyclists have their health greatly improved because of
regular and high quality exercise. Some very small number of these
cyclists are involved in serious accidents that require significant
medical expenses. What's the balance sheet? According to Hillman
Meyer in a study for the British Medical Association the balance is
struck at about 20 years of healthy life added for every one lost
due to accidents. In other words, Chuck, bicyclist cause insurance
costs to drop.

I'm sorry if I seem irritated at times, but we need to repeat these
posts many times per month and are always faced with the same
uneducated questions. While it is true that there are no dumb
questions, only dumb answers, it is trying when someone cannot
read the information that is already there if they take the trouble
to look.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/17/98 12:00 AM
In article <35ae615e...@news.mindspring.com>,
  cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:

> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
>
> What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
> Stroke?  You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????
>
> Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
> cooler than with no helmet.

What gives you to this bizarre idea? Much of the bodies heat is disipated
from your head. Heat rises even in your case. How can putting a thick
layer of insulating material over your head cause you to cool better
than without?

I expect that you believe the advertising of helmet manufacturers that
talk about "tests" but can't cite one published in a serious journal.

> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
>
> You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
> insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
> have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
> I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
> cigarettes,  or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve  brain
> injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
> own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
> us have to pay for someones stupidity?  If my neighbor smokes in bed
> and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
> don't think so!

Bob, it's plain that you don't understand economics very well. Medical
insurance expenses are controlled almost completely by the accident
rates of automobiles and the rates of heart disease in overweight,
unhealthy older individuals. The accident rates of bicycles have
nothing whatsoever to do with it.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/17/98 12:00 AM
Thomas Ahart wrote:

> The medical professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts".  Law enforcement
> professionals say: "wear helmets and seatbelts.  Independent testing
> organizations say "wear helmets and seatbelts".  People who know accident
> survivors say "wear helmets and seatbelts".  People who know people that have


> died in accidents say: "I wish he was wearing his helmet or his seatbelt."

And medical statisticians  and risk assessment professionals say what?
WHo has the best understanding of what goes on in a population and what
the real risks are?

Doctors in A&E see accidents and believe subconciously that everything
is just an accident waiting to happen.


Law enforcement professionals see accidents and believe that everything
is and accident waiting to happen.

ITO's need people to buy helmets and begin to believe their substandard
testing has something to do with the real world.

ANd people who know people who have had accidents tend to be somewhat
biased in their emotional response.

WHereas those who carry out a careful systematic study on the effects of
helmets on a population find very little effect, definitely not enough
to make it worthwhile insisting that everyone should wear a helmet, and
finding that for many people the cost of wearing a helmet (no, not the
price, the cost) exceeds the value. The cost benefit ratio goes the
wrong way.

Let everyone make up their own minds. I refuse to let some do-gooder
force me off my bike because they insist that I should wear a helmet
whilst climbing hills in 80+ degree heat at 4 mph. It is ridiculous.
The majority of accidents are easily avoided. Some others (but a tiny
proportion compared to the firast part) are avoidable with a bit more
skill and experience, and a vanishingly small proportion are
unavoidable.

One can alter ones own risk profile. I don't participate in mass start
races, or large group rides with lots of novice cyclists. I don't try to
'push my limits' on technical terrain off road. I ride with a suitable
degree of caution all year round and tend to not have near misses, let
alone collisions.
I have had a couple of involuntary dismounts. But those are predicatble
far enough in advance that one can fall safely. ( a second or so .. both
were due to not being able to release from new clipless pedals under
exceptional circumstances that in hindsight were avoidable, and will be
avoided in future)

For a transport cyclist, accidents are very very rare if they are riding
correctly. For a racing cyclist, or leisure cyclist well, you pick your
own risk.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. James D Annan 7/17/98 12:00 AM
Chuck Fry wrote:

>
> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> chances of avoiding another concussion.  Discomfort from heat is

> temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
>
> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> avoidable injury.

If you are stupid enough to ride within a door's width of parked
cars, then don't expect me to pay for your medical expenses
when you suffer the obvious consequences, helmet or no helmet.

James
--
James Annan jdan(at)pol(dot)ac(dot)you-kay
Proudman Oceanographic Lab
Bidston, Merseyside, L43 7RA

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/17/98 12:00 AM
In article <6ollau$em5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,


>  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
>>
>> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
>> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
>> chances of avoiding another concussion.
>
>What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
>avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?

Now, Tom.  Just a few days ago, under intense pressure, you stated that a
helmet *could* provide such protection.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. RayG...@my-dejanews.com 7/18/98 12:00 AM
In article <35ae615e...@news.mindspring.com>,
  cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:
> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> >In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> >  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> >>
> >> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> >> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> >> chances of avoiding another concussion.
> >
> >What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
> >avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
> >
> >> Discomfort from heat is temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
> >
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
> >
>
> What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
> Stroke?  You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????
>
> Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
> cooler than with no helmet.
>
> >> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> >> avoidable injury.
> >
> >Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
> >if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
> >a shower?
> >
> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
> >
>
> You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
> insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
> have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
> I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
> cigarettes,  or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve  brain
> injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
> own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
> us have to pay for someones stupidity?  If my neighbor smokes in bed
> and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
> don't think so!
>
> Bob

Jeez, you guys.  Get a life!

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Martin Newstead 7/18/98 12:00 AM
I reckon 'The Cat' is the great cycling god who gets us all from time to
time. Maybe Chris and Cipo' failed to do enough winter training or didn't
get caught in the rain enough times in the spring.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Malcolm 7/19/98 12:00 AM
 Pete <p...@visi.net> writes

>DUH. If you ride in such a manner as to put yourself in those
>situations...you NEED a helmet.

<Gonna comment and run..>

In 20 years of motorbiking I crashed a number of times, especially
during the first few years. I never hit anything, just lost wheel grip.

AT NO POINT WAS MY HELMET EVEN SCRATCHED! EVER! I used to replace it
every few years as I was led to believe that the plastics deteriorated
(probably a commercial claim by the manufacturers?). Hands, elbows and
pelvis are the bits which take the strain in a motorcycle crash.

Now I'm on a bicycle, I'm delighted to get rid of the crash hat. To the
people who claim that a bicycle crash is different from a M/C crash
because the centre of gravity is higher and therefore you're more likely
to go head-first over the bars, I say  - "True, but only if you drive
into something head-on. And that's just poor driving isn't it?"

So if you're a bad driver, get a crash hat. Otherwise, anticipate the
road problems, throw away the helmet, and enjoy your biking!

--
Malcolm (Nevil's Host)
.                                                           ///|||\\\
.                                                             0   0
.                                                            \_____/
.                                                               U


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jack Dingler 7/19/98 12:00 AM
Perry wrote:
>
> Tom Kunich is absolutely right. Casartelli's crash was at high speed and no
> helmet would have saved him. I was in Italy at the time, and initial footage
> from the scene of the accident was extremely gruesome. This differs from
> what you see in FCV Tour videotape for that year. I don't think I have ever
> been so shocked (there were millions of us watching that day, the telecast
> was stopped as soon as he was pronounced dead). Sometimes we are placed in
> circumstances where death is unavoidable. But in the mean time, we have
> control over the risks we face in life. Choosing not to wear a helmet when
> riding, especially with uncontrollable variables such as cars, is insane or
> stupid. Any increase in the odds of surviving an accident is worth the
> insignificant cost and discomfort of a helemt.


Yes it's stupid.  You got it.  It's dumb, not to worry incessantly over
the 1% of head injury causes and ignore the 99%.  After all that 99% is
stupid to worry about.

Check out this web page once in a while...
http://www.dallasnews.com/

Since this heat wave has begun, two helmeted cyclists in the area have
died from heat exposure.  During the same period, no unhelmeted cyclists
have died.  One of the cyclists who died, was a bike cop.

Before you started calling people stupid for understanding that there is
a down side to helmets, consider the data first.

I wear a helmet most of the time.  I ride in the 100+f temperatures
everyday, so I'm somewhat acclimated to it.  Still, I ride a fine line
between speed and heat.  Today, I got dizzy for a moment, at the end of
a thirty mile ride, with a few hours of rock climbing.  For just a
second, I lost control over my balance and found that my belly button
was riding on my brake hood.  This was the only indication I had, that
the heat was getting to me.  I got my bike back under control and didn't
crash.  The thought of that near face plant, is frightening still.  Even
now, I have no recollection of what really happened beyond the feeling
of weakness and the panic to regain control.

This begs some questions...
1. Would this have happened if the helmet hadn't been helping my head
retain heat?
2. I know, that had I gone down, I would've landed on my face.  Would a
helmet have saved me from injuries?
3. Should I consider not wearing a helmet on dangerously hot days?

I'm considering number 3.  I don't ride in the extremely unsafe
conditions that many other riders do.  I don't crash a lot.  I don't get
doored twice a week.  I don't get hit by cars often.  I don't do deep
steep descents at high speeds down twisty mountian slopes in the rain.
In fact, my cycling falls have been rare events and I've never hit my
head.  I used to crash a lot on motorcycles, but still, I never
scratched a helmet then, either.

If a helmet is going to increase my odds of passing out, and crashing,
then why should I wear one?

Now I know, that some posters have insisted, the heat related
difficulties are a myth.  That no one can die from heat exposure.  I
don't know where they get there information from, but evidently, they've
led sheltered lives.

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler
Irving, Texas

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jack Dingler 7/19/98 12:00 AM
Chuck Fry wrote:
>
> Aw shit, I *knew* I shouldn't have chimed in...
>
> In article <6ollau$em5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>  <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
> >In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> >  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> >> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> >> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> >> chances of avoiding another concussion.
> >
> >What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
> >avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
>
> Show me the numbers, then I'll decide for myself.
>
> >> Discomfort from heat is temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
> >
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
>
> Can you demonstrate that helmets cause or exacerbate heat stroke?

Tow helmeted local rides have died in the Dallas area since this heat
wave began.  No unhelmeted cyclists have died.  Though this sin't really
proof and the numbers don't mean much, it's the kind of math that seems
to impresses those with an MHL agenda.

> And while this might affect my decision on a hot day, it isn't a factor
> in cooler weather.

Okay!  Great!  I'll only use a helmet for five months of the year.

> >> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> >> avoidable injury.
> >
> >Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
> >if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
> >a shower?
>
> Not at all -- assuming I were so foolish as to practice some risky
> activity without taking precautions known to minimize the risks.

I rarely drive these days.  I've probably done more than you, to
minimize risks by enacting that change of lifestyle.

> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
>
> Via my health and auto insurance payments, and taxes, of course.  Doesn't
> everyone?

You haven't looked into medical expense statistics, have you?  Search
the web, look around, learn about injuries, causes and costs.  It's all
on online and easy to get to, if you can type a query string.

Jack Dingler

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jack Dingler 7/19/98 12:00 AM
Chuck Fry wrote:

> Discomfort from heat is
> temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.

Cool!  So I should expect the two helmeted local cyclists, who died from
heat exposure to come back to life?

That's great!  Will you write their grieving families?  I'm sure this
news will be of great comfort to them.

Jack Dingler

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jack Dingler 7/19/98 12:00 AM
Bob Cardone wrote:
>
> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> >In article <6ol9rp$qbf$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> >  chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:
> >>
> >> Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
> >> line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
> >> chances of avoiding another concussion.
> >
> >What if you found out that a helmet didn't improve your chances of
> >avoiding a concussion? Would you still wear one?
> >
> >> Discomfort from heat is temporary.  Brain injuries can last forever.
> >
> >Heat stroke is one cause of brain injuries.
> >
>
> What kind of Helmet are you wearing that would contribute to Heat
> Stroke?  You wearing a Steel Pot from the Army circa 1945????
>
> Most helmets made in the last 10 years, if anything, keep your head
> cooler than with no helmet.

I have never heard that before.  Can you cite a few sources for this
data?  It sounds like you just made it up.

> >> It's your head.  So don't ask me to pay the medical expenses for your
> >> avoidable injury.
> >
> >Oh, then you don't mind if I refuse to pay for your medical expenses
> >if you are brain injured while walking, riding in an auto or taking
> >a shower?
> >
> >And can you please tell me how _you_ are paying for someone else's
> >injury?
> >
>
> You pay for someone elses injury or illness, when you have medical
> insurance in the same way you pay for everyones car accident when you
> have auto insurance. The money goes into and gets payed out of a pool.
> I think of people refuse to wear seatblets, Helmets, etc , or smoke
> cigarettes,  or drive drunk and get in accidents or recieve  brain
> injuries, lung cancer etc... They should have to sell evrything they
> own to pay for their self inflicted problems. Why should the rest of
> us have to pay for someones stupidity?  If my neighbor smokes in bed
> and burns his house down, should I be forced to pay to rebuild it? I
> don't think so!
>
> Bob

There you go.  Another excellent argument for car helmets.  Thanks for
coming around on this one Bob.  I agree, if someone get's a head injury
while in an auto accident, insurance shouldn't cover it.  After all,
it's so easy to wear a helmet in a car.  They even make car helmets
already.  There's no reason not to do it. Unless a person is just
stupid.  Right Bob!  You're not stupid are you?

Jack Dingler

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. RipTide 7/20/98 12:00 AM
Jack Dingler wrote:

 I recall reading a study where wearing a helmet reduced the kind of heat build
up that leads to heat stroke, because a helmet actually reduces the heat affects
of direct sunlight, while at the same time the ventilation allows body heat to be
taken away.

I suspect the two deaths are more likely to be caused by dehydration rather than
heat stroke, though I am happy to be proved incorrect.

--
RipTide (no return email - too much spam)

All opinions are mine. Any resemblance to any other opinions,
living or dead, is purely coincidental
       |\      _,,,---,,_
 ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
______|,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (____-'___________________
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dorre 7/20/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Two, I have a problem with the line of reasoning that goes like,
: "wearing helmets on bikes is such an arbitrary way to minimize risk of
: injury, it makes no sense to do it when there are plenty of other
: risks we face every day but do nothing to prevent."  The logical
: extension of this argument is that we should either do absolutely
: nothing to protect ourselves from harm, or we should never leave the
: house, because any one thing we choose to do will seem absurd in light
: of all the other risks that remain unattended.

    No, that's the illogical extension of the argument.
    The *logical* action is to tackle the *biggest* risks first.
    So if you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, and
a helmet has a better chance of preventing that injury, the logical
action would be to wear the helmet in the car.  Then, having attended
to the larger risks, it may or may not be worthwhile worring about
smaller risks.
    Depending on how and where you ride, helmets when cycling might
also be worthwhile.  But it's illogical to ignore large risks when
they could easily be prevented with a little time and effort, and
instead spend that time and effort on something with lower risks.

However, surely you'll
: agree that we have to take some precautions in our daily lives, and it
: is in large part our own personal responsibility to choose which
: precautions these will be.  How do we make these choices?  We
: make them case by case, situation by situation, based on various
: irrational and rational factors which vary from person to person.
: You may protest, "But your decision to wear a helmet on your bike
: but not in your car or on your sailboat makes no sense!", but this
: is irrelevant and is not the basis for an argument against wearing
: helmets.  People are irrational.


    Maybe not that irrational.  Imagine you had a money belt.  Would
you use it for your wads of notes, or your loose change?   Most
people would use it for the items they could least afford to loose.
    In the same way, if the Government spent 95% of its safety
budjet on measures to protect the earth against an asteroid impact,
but did nothing about other more likely events - floods, global
warming, having standards so buildings didn't fall down in the
street or fixing dangerous road intersections, you'd think they
were nuts for spending all their efforts at preventing or mitigating
the low risks, instead of those which were more likely to happen.
    In the case of helmets, it's not so much a case of irrationality,
but misunderstanding of the risks.  People think (or have been led to
believe) that cycling is much more dangerous than it really is.  Why
else would people keep saying you have to wear a helmet?
    In addition, the cost of wearing a helmet in a car has nothing
to do with the cost of the helmet itself, or the inconvenience.  It
is the fear of looking silly.
    If it weren't for this fear of looking silly, most people who
wear a helmet on a bike, but would benefit more from wearing one in
the car, would probably do the sensible thing and wear one for both.
    And, of course, would no lonmger need to fall back on the excuse
of irrationality for explaining why they try to mitigate one risk,
but ignore a larger one, despite the prevention measures being
similar.
   Dorre

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/20/98 12:00 AM
Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:

>Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: Two, I have a problem with the line of reasoning that goes like,
>: "wearing helmets on bikes is such an arbitrary way to minimize risk of
>: injury, it makes no sense to do it when there are plenty of other
>: risks we face every day but do nothing to prevent."  The logical
>: extension of this argument is that we should either do absolutely
>: nothing to protect ourselves from harm, or we should never leave the
>: house, because any one thing we choose to do will seem absurd in light
>: of all the other risks that remain unattended.
>
>    No, that's the illogical extension of the argument.
>    The *logical* action is to tackle the *biggest* risks first.
>    So if you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, and
>a helmet has a better chance of preventing that injury, the logical
>action would be to wear the helmet in the car.  Then, having attended
>to the larger risks, it may or may not be worthwhile worring about
>smaller risks.

I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
driver, of course, but this goes without saying).  This is because
seat belts have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
to be quite effective at reducing injury in car accidents.  After
that, airbags seem to be the next big safety measure.  When
some idiot brings up the "why not wear a helmet in a car"
argument, the instinctive response is, "that's silly", and the
reason for this response is not that they just don't understand
that wearing a helmet makes no sense on a bike, it's that they
feel that they've already taken steps to ensure their safety
while driving a car, and wearing a helmet seems to be an
unnecessary precaution given that seat belts and airbags can
do the job much better.  There is no analogous argument against
wearing a helmet on a bike.  Wearing a helmet is the *first*
physical safety measure of a cyclist.  It is analogous to wearing
a seat belt in a car - NOT a bike helmet.  So please lay this
tired bullshit argument to rest.

>People think (or have been led to
>believe) that cycling is much more dangerous than it really is.  Why
>else would people keep saying you have to wear a helmet?

Personally, I wear a helmet because I've crashed a couple
times and whacked my head hard enough to make me damn
grateful I was wearing a helmet which absorbed the brunt of
the impact.  That's my choice.  Let me emphasize here that I
don't care if you don't wear a helmet.  I'm not trying to convince
anybody to wear one.  It just pisses me off to see such idiotic
arguments *against* wearing a helmet.  If you don't want to
wear one, don't wear one, what do I care?


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/20/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B2E439.5D91B06F@a.cinema.near.you>,

  RipTide <playing@a.cinema.near.you> wrote:
>
> I recall reading a study where wearing a helmet reduced the kind of heat
> build up that leads to heat stroke, because a helmet actually reduces the
> heat affects of direct sunlight, while at the same time the ventilation
> allows body heat to be taken away.

Excuse me, but you remember no such thing. I think that you are remembering
(or mis-remembering) an advertisement from either Bell or Specialized. Both
have made the same sorts of stupid claims without any data to back it up.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Pete 7/20/98 12:00 AM

--
p...@visi.net
Dave Bailey wrote in message <35b338bb....@news.mindspring.com>...
>Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:


>>Then, having attended
>>to the larger risks, it may or may not be worthwhile worring about
>>smaller risks.
>
>I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
>So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
>Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
>consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
>driver, of course, but this goes without saying).  This is because
>seat belts have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
>to be quite effective at reducing injury in car accidents.  After
>that, airbags seem to be the next big safety measure.  When
>some idiot brings up the "why not wear a helmet in a car"
>argument, the instinctive response is, "that's silly", and the
>reason for this response is not that they just don't understand
>that wearing a helmet makes no sense on a bike, it's that they
>feel that they've already taken steps to ensure their safety
>while driving a car, and wearing a helmet seems to be an
>unnecessary precaution given that seat belts and airbags can
>do the job much better.  There is no analogous argument against
>wearing a helmet on a bike.  Wearing a helmet is the *first*
>physical safety measure of a cyclist.  It is analogous to wearing
>a seat belt in a car - NOT a bike helmet.  So please lay this
>tired bullshit argument to rest.

Your argument makes sense, except for the fact that, even with belts and
airbags, more people (numerically, and percentagewise) suffer head injuries
in cars crashes than in bike crashes.

Which thing should we be taking care of....the little one or the big one?

Pete
BTW....the *first* physical safety measure of a cyclist is riding
safely.....not protective armor.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/20/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b338bb....@news.mindspring.com>,

  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
> driver, of course, but this goes without saying).

None of this makes a bit of difference. After you buy your car with air
bags and put on your seat belts, you STILL have a greater chance of
dying from a head injury than if you were riding a bike without a helmet.

As for proof: how were seat belts proven to prevent injuries in accidents?
On race courses. As were crash helmets. There is about the same evidence of
helmets working in cars as there is of helmets working for bicyclists.
Neither case is very strong.

> Personally, I wear a helmet because I've crashed a couple
> times and whacked my head hard enough to make me damn
> grateful I was wearing a helmet which absorbed the brunt of
> the impact.  That's my choice.

Great, but don't think that your helmet is increasing your "safety" cause
it ain't.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Scott Chan 7/20/98 12:00 AM
> Your argument makes sense, except for the fact that, even with belts and
> airbags, more people (numerically, and percentagewise) suffer head injuries
> in cars crashes than in bike crashes.
>
> Which thing should we be taking care of....the little one or the big one?
>
> Pete
> BTW....the *first* physical safety measure of a cyclist is riding
> safely.....not protective armor.

Cars have many more protective devices than just seat belts and
air bags.  Padded
interiors (pillars, steering wheels, dash), safety glass, etc.
have all improved survivability.  Whack your head in a modern
car and you might still have some sense left.  Whack your head in a '58
Chevy and the injuries will be more severe.  Cyclists have had
no such innovations protecting our heads, except for helmets.

--
Scott

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/20/98 12:00 AM
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <35b338bb....@news.mindspring.com>,
>  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
>> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
>> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
>> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
>> driver, of course, but this goes without saying).
>
>None of this makes a bit of difference. After you buy your car with air
>bags and put on your seat belts, you STILL have a greater chance of
>dying from a head injury than if you were riding a bike without a helmet.

Even if true, that is irrelevant.  The point is the *perceived*
extent of safety measures taken is sufficient for many drivers
if they simply wear a seat belt.  

>> Personally, I wear a helmet because I've crashed a couple
>> times and whacked my head hard enough to make me damn
>> grateful I was wearing a helmet which absorbed the brunt of
>> the impact.  That's my choice.
>
>Great, but don't think that your helmet is increasing your "safety" cause
>it ain't.

My gosh, were you there when I crashed?  Where did I hit my
head, and how hard?  How did you conclude that, based on
your observation of my accidents, my helmet didn't make a
difference?  

You've misunderstood my point, of course.  I now understand that
this issue is deeply tied in to your ego and sense of self.  To admit
that your position makes no sense would, for you, be tantamount
to admitting that you are a failure as a person.  So I don't expect
much from you.  I, on the other hand, could care less about this
whole thing.  As I've said many times, it doesn't bother me that
you won't wear a helmet, because I think it's your business and
not mine.  Likewise, my decision to wear a helmet is my business,
and not yours.  

Clearly, you'll never get closure in this situation if I keep
following up to your posts.  I'm debating doing so just to see
how long you'll go on repeating your tired arguments, sort of as
a combination practical joke and brilliant illustration of your
helplessness in this situation.  But I'm getting tired, and my busy
social schedule is forcing me to spend less time that I'd like
on my precious rec.bicycles.racing.  Just remember that you're
completely at my mercy here because you care too much.  


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jack Dingler 7/20/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:
>
> Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> >: Two, I have a problem with the line of reasoning that goes like,
> >: "wearing helmets on bikes is such an arbitrary way to minimize risk of
> >: injury, it makes no sense to do it when there are plenty of other
> >: risks we face every day but do nothing to prevent."  The logical
> >: extension of this argument is that we should either do absolutely
> >: nothing to protect ourselves from harm, or we should never leave the
> >: house, because any one thing we choose to do will seem absurd in light
> >: of all the other risks that remain unattended.
> >
> >    No, that's the illogical extension of the argument.
> >    The *logical* action is to tackle the *biggest* risks first.
> >    So if you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, and
> >a helmet has a better chance of preventing that injury, the logical
> >action would be to wear the helmet in the car.  Then, having attended

> >to the larger risks, it may or may not be worthwhile worring about
> >smaller risks.
>
> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
> driver, of course, but this goes without saying).  This is because
> seat belts have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
> to be quite effective at reducing injury in car accidents.  After
> that, airbags seem to be the next big safety measure.  When
> some idiot brings up the "why not wear a helmet in a car"
> argument, the instinctive response is, "that's silly", and the
> reason for this response is not that they just don't understand
> that wearing a helmet makes no sense on a bike, it's that they
> feel that they've already taken steps to ensure their safety
> while driving a car, and wearing a helmet seems to be an
> unnecessary precaution given that seat belts and airbags can
> do the job much better.  There is no analogous argument against
> wearing a helmet on a bike.  Wearing a helmet is the *first*
> physical safety measure of a cyclist.  It is analogous to wearing
> a seat belt in a car - NOT a bike helmet.  So please lay this
> tired bullshit argument to rest.

Hmmmm, I've already taken two major safety steps when I ride a bike.
First, I've almost halved my chance of head injury by cycling instead of
driving.  Second, I practice safe cycling, to the best of my ability.
That evens out your tired argument that seatbelts and airbags are enough
protection that no more should be added.  Your argument that seatbelts
protect against head injuries as well as a bike helmet is plain wrong
also.  The most common form of deadly car accident is a side impact
collision.  Seatbelts and airbags do little good, so essentially, you're
unprotected in a side impact collision.  Since helmets for cars are
already being manufactured and may help in a side impact collision, why
not wear one?  Do you prefer to be unprotected in a side impact
collision?

> >People think (or have been led to
> >believe) that cycling is much more dangerous than it really is.  Why
> >else would people keep saying you have to wear a helmet?
>
> Personally, I wear a helmet because I've crashed a couple
> times and whacked my head hard enough to make me damn
> grateful I was wearing a helmet which absorbed the brunt of
> the impact.  That's my choice.  Let me emphasize here that I
> don't care if you don't wear a helmet.  I'm not trying to convince
> anybody to wear one.  It just pisses me off to see such idiotic
> arguments *against* wearing a helmet.  If you don't want to
> wear one, don't wear one, what do I care?

No, you've got it wrong.  We're insisting that you should wear one when
driving.  It's stupid not to.  Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet while
driving is stupid.

What do you call a motorist who's too stupid to wear a car helmet?  An
organ donor.

Jack Dingler

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Robert Oliver 7/20/98 12:00 AM
>  I recall reading a study where wearing a helmet reduced the kind of heat build
> up that leads to heat stroke, because a helmet actually reduces the heat affects
> of direct sunlight, while at the same time the ventilation allows body heat to be
> taken away.

Great, but they didn't do that study on me. I approve of helmet use, but
for me it is simply not an option on a hot day. Intense heat will build
up rapidly even at the very beginning of a ride. I can barely wear a
helmet in the winter. I hate hats for the most part--due to heat
buildup.

--

Steeltown: A Big Country web site
http://www.mint.net/~roliver/bc-mint.htm

A Guide to the Star Trek Universe
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6053/

The Unofficial Wheel of Time Chronology
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3513/wot.htm

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Robert Oliver 7/20/98 12:00 AM
> BTW....the *first* physical safety measure of a cyclist is riding
> safely.....not protective armor.

Well, that sounds good, and it is in fact a good thing, but riding
safely will not protect you from idiotic motorists. There seems to be
this theory going around that safe riding will prevent numerous
accidents, and somewhat negate the need for a helmet.

Most of my run-ins with cars are when I am safely following the rules of
the road 100% No matter how safe I am it often just doesn't help.

The only time I've ever been hit was when I was riding straight down a
road and a car did a running stop and slammed into me. Very little else
one could do to ride "safer." I did have a helmet on, but it had no
effect since I landed on my left arm (had a winter jacket on) and my
head probably never came more than 6 inches from the ground.

I guess my point is that neither helmets or safe riding are necessarily
enough. In the end idiots with cars can ruin your day no matter what
precautions you take. And cycling is definitely a dangerous activity,
since it involves riding around in close proximity to nuts in cars. (I
think the State of Maine actually TEACHES people to try and hit bikes).

--

Steeltown: A Big Country web site
http://www.mint.net/~roliver/bc-mint.htm

A Guide to the Star Trek Universe
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6053/

The Unofficial Wheel of Time Chronology
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3513/wot.htm

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dorre 7/21/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:

: tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
: >In article <35b338bb....@news.mindspring.com>,
: >  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:

# >> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
# >> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
# >> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
# >> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
# >> driver, of course, but this goes without saying).

# >None of this makes a bit of difference. After you buy your car with
air
# >bags and put on your seat belts, you STILL have a greater chance of
# >dying from a head injury than if you were riding a bike without a
helmet.

# Even if true, that is irrelevant.  The point is the *perceived*
# extent of safety measures taken is sufficient for many drivers
# if they simply wear a seat belt.

    Are you serious???

    Don't you think someone should enlighten them about the true risks?

    In this thread, only a couple of days ago, the idea of not paying
the medical expenses of unhelmeted cyclists was again raised because
they had "contributed" to their injuries by not wearing a helmet.  Yet
all the while, seatbelted, unhelmeted motorists face a similar risk
every
hour they spend in their cars, but never, ever get accused of
"contributing" to their own injuries in the same way.

    Don't you think that this continual harping on about helmets for
cyclists (and that unhelmeted cyclists should pay for the tretment if
injured) gives people the wrong impression about the relative danger?
Don't you think it puts people off cycling, and encourages them to drive
instead?  Despite the fact that it would be much better for their
health,
and the community as a whole, if they cycled?

    As well as being anti-cyclist, it's stupid to say that one group of
road users should wear helmets, while another group who faces an almost
identical risk hardly ever hears it?

   The actual risks (per hour of activity) are readily available on the
web
from such prestiguous organisations as Failure Associates (who, I
believe
may provide this info eg to insurance companies). They have also been
posted here many times.

    I thought we were talking about what *logical* people (ie those with
enough sense to check out the true risks for themselves) should do, not
the typical auto driver!

    But even motorists have to be educated at some time, if cycling is
to flourish and we are to encourage back to cycling those put off by the
focus of helmets for cyclists and the implied danger.  Getting more
people
to cycle is, in the end, the way to make life better and safer for all
cyclists.  Isn't that what we all want?

    Dorre

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/21/98 12:00 AM
Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
>    Are you serious???
>
>    Don't you think someone should enlighten them about the true risks?
[...]

>    Don't you think that this continual harping on about helmets for
>cyclists (and that unhelmeted cyclists should pay for the tretment if
>injured) gives people the wrong impression about the relative danger?
>Don't you think it puts people off cycling, and encourages them to drive
>instead?  Despite the fact that it would be much better for their
>health, and the community as a whole, if they cycled?

>    As well as being anti-cyclist, it's stupid to say that one group of
>road users should wear helmets, while another group who faces an almost
>identical risk hardly ever hears it?
[...]

>    But even motorists have to be educated at some time, if cycling is
>to flourish and we are to encourage back to cycling those put off by the
>focus of helmets for cyclists and the implied danger.  Getting more
>people to cycle is, in the end, the way to make life better and safer for all
>cyclists.  Isn't that what we all want?

So you are not really against people wearing a helmet while riding
a bike.  You're just a rabid pro-helmet activist who wants to see auto
drivers wearing helmets too.  Well, fine.  Here are my responses to
each of your sentences that ends in a question mark, in order:

No.  I don't know.  No.  Not a question.  Not a question.  Maybe.

Kisses,

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. RipTide 7/21/98 12:00 AM
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> In article <35B2E439.5D91B06F@a.cinema.near.you>,
>   RipTide <playing@a.cinema.near.you> wrote:
> >
> > I recall reading a study where wearing a helmet reduced the kind of heat
> > build up that leads to heat stroke, because a helmet actually reduces the
> > heat affects of direct sunlight, while at the same time the ventilation
> > allows body heat to be taken away.
>
> Excuse me, but you remember no such thing. I think that you are remembering
> (or mis-remembering) an advertisement from either Bell or Specialized. Both
> have made the same sorts of stupid claims without any data to back it up.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum


Whilst it isn't exactly the same as I thought (although there is a
mention of it in the last quote) check out

http://www.smf.org/Articles/LA_Times97_8.html

I dont think this counts as advertorial

--
RipTide (no return email - too much spam)

All opinions are mine. Any resemblance to any other opinions,
living or dead, is purely coincidental
       |\      _,,,---,,_
 ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
______|,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (____-'___________________
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tom Kunich 7/21/98 12:00 AM
Scott Chan wrote:
>
> Cars have many more protective devices than just seat belts and
> air bags.  Padded interiors (pillars, steering wheels, dash), safety
> glass, etc. have all improved survivability.  Whack your head in a
> modern car and you might still have some sense left.  Whack your head
> in a '58 Chevy and the injuries will be more severe.  Cyclists have
> had no such innovations protecting our heads, except for helmets.

Excuse me for being irritated Scott, but can't you read? It doesn't
make a wit of difference what you are driving. When you drive you have
a statistically known chance of having a head injury and that
chance is twice that of a bicyclist.

And as for the year of the car making a difference -- give me a brake.
Just try reading the accident statistics for the last 30 years.
Shheesh!

Look, you AREN'T a bad guy for wearing a helmet. It just ain't going
to save your life if you do something stupid. Comprende'?

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tom Kunich 7/21/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:
>
> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> >In article <35b338bb....@news.mindspring.com>,
> >  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree that this is how most people go about risk management.
> >> So let's examine the car situation a little closer, shall we?
> >> Wearing a seat belt in a car is the canonical form of safety
> >> consciousness while driving (in addition to being a careful
> >> driver, of course, but this goes without saying).
> >
> >None of this makes a bit of difference. After you buy your car with
> >air bags and put on your seat belts, you STILL have a greater chance
> >of dying from a head injury than if you were riding a bike without a
> > helmet.
>
> Even if true, that is irrelevant.  The point is the *perceived*
> extent of safety measures taken is sufficient for many drivers
> if they simply wear a seat belt.

OK, let's get this straight. It doesn't really matter if you are safer
riding your bicycle without a helmet than you are driving your car
with it's safety equipment. All that matters is your perceived danger.

You are right, your busy social schedule is far more important. I'm
sure that the perceived danger of this subject is more than you can
take.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tom Kunich 7/21/98 12:00 AM
RipTide wrote:

>
> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
> >
> > Excuse me, but you remember no such thing. I think that you are
> > remembering (or mis-remembering) an advertisement from either Bell
> > or Specialized. Both have made the same sorts of stupid claims
> > without any data to back it up.
> >
> Whilst it isn't exactly the same as I thought (although there is a
> mention of it in the last quote) check out
>
> http://www.smf.org/Articles/LA_Times97_8.html
>
> I dont think this counts as advertorial

Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.

For one thing, I don't think that many people who ride at 20 mph
complain about the heat. You can see the heat complaints here often
and they always refer to climbing in the sun at low speeds. I know
that I tried it and was forced to remove my helmet on at least one
occasion and removal of the helmet caused IMMEDIATE relief.

Judging by the fact that the heat problem is a constant complaint
by riders I defy researchers to use more realistic experiments.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/21/98 12:00 AM
Jack Dingler <jdin...@onramp.net> wrote:

>The most common form of deadly car accident is a side impact
>collision.  Seatbelts and airbags do little good, so essentially, you're
>unprotected in a side impact collision.  Since helmets for cars are
>already being manufactured and may help in a side impact collision, why
>not wear one?  Do you prefer to be unprotected in a side impact
>collision?

Side impact collisions are more dangerous because people wear
seat belts and are thus more likely to survive a head-on collision
which they otherwise would not survive.  

>No, you've got it wrong.  We're insisting that you should wear one when
>driving.  It's stupid not to.  Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet while
>driving is stupid.

Do you wear a helmet while driving?


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/21/98 12:00 AM
Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com> wrote:

>OK, let's get this straight. It doesn't really matter if you are safer
>riding your bicycle without a helmet than you are driving your car
>with it's safety equipment. All that matters is your perceived danger.

Congratulations.  Now you are beginning to understand the
nature the human mind.  It doesn't make sense, does it?  No
more so than your inability to let go of this thread.  I bet you'll
be unable to stop yourself from following up to this post.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Garry Lee 7/21/98 12:00 AM
I've climbed many times in severe heat in Europe and tried with or
without. Could find no difference. What is much cooler, however is no
helmet and a hat.


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/21/98 12:00 AM
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
> want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
> of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.

Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
I accept them fully.

Its just that they apply to fit college level atheletes at a windspeed
of 20mph.

virtually irrelevant to a 20-30 ound overweight lump climbing a steep
hill at under 5 mph.

It would be interesting to determine for those riders their surface area
to volume ratio and their percent body fat. Most of this sort of rider
complain about the cold, most of the overweight unfit group (like me)
complain about the heat.

So yes there is a limited study that is not generally appliccable.

How about a study that is more relevant to real life for the mere
mortals?

any takers?

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p1a3t$s5s$1...@news2.news.iol.ie>,

Well, I always wear a cycling cap since I'm bald. When I'm wearing a
helmet the cap is usually soaked with sweat, sometimes so badly that
it drips down into my eyes. When I'm not wearing a helmet the cap
is usually dry or at least not more than damp.

Isn't that proof that there is a significant difference in cooling
with and without a helmet?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,

  David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
> > want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
> > of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.
>
> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
> I accept them fully.

David, I think that you misunderstand me. I do not think for a moment
that Bell Sports would generate phony information. But I do think and
I could probably provide strong evidence if pushed, that Bell Sports
carefully picks the projects that research helmet issues. And they
pick them carefully to avoid the real issues. That's marketing, not
lying.

Obviously the method and that conditions of that study left an awful lot
to be desired. For one thing they certainly didn't discuss the problem
of overheating with any real riders or they would have known that
riding a speed wasn't a problem.

I performed a Conconi test on a group of riders under a car port in
mid-winter here. Everyone was wearing their cycling togs. The temperature
was about 6C or 8C. Every single one of those tested was drenched in
sweat and dripping upon the ground at the end of the tests.

Everyone that rides a trainer in the winter time knows that without
airflow you overheat in very short order regardless of temperature.

Yet we see a 'study' of overheating that completely avoids the true
issues.

> Its just that they apply to fit college level atheletes at a windspeed
> of 20mph. Virtually irrelevant to a 20-30 pound overweight lump climbing

> a steep hill at under 5 mph.

I think that the governing factor here is the windspeed and not the
age, weight or physical fitness of the testee.

> It would be interesting to determine for those riders their surface area
> to volume ratio and their percent body fat. Most of this sort of rider
> complain about the cold, most of the overweight unfit group (like me)
> complain about the heat.
>
> So yes there is a limited study that is not generally appliccable.

Again, windspeed is significant. Surface area to volume really doesn't
vary all that much for the vaste majority of riders. You don't see
someone 100 lb.s overweight cycling up Col du Tourmalet. Well, maybe
one of those German guys....

> How about a study that is more relevant to real life for the mere
> mortals?
>
> any takers?

Who supplies the funding?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Andrew Albright 7/21/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com> wrote:

I smell a treadmill.

Don't you guys have a tour to pay attention to?

And Tom, why haven't you pointed out Tchmil's good placings?  Not bad in
the sprint for an old fart?

Andrew Albright

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/21/98 12:00 AM
Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:

>I've climbed many times in severe heat in Europe and tried with or
>without. Could find no difference. What is much cooler, however is no
>helmet and a hat.
>

Watched the Tour last night on ESPN. Several riders claimed it was the
hotest temperature they had ever raced in.  The Stage winner wore a
Helmet????????  Go figure.


<g>


Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,
  David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
> I accept them fully.

David, I want to say something about this.

Last night I was in a college library while my wife was researching
an educational psychology paper. I walked throught the aisles of
peer reviewed journals and felt a great sadness.

Knowledge is built on knowledge. But ignorance is also built upon ignorance.
Peer reviewed journals are like every other periodical -- they have deadlines
and they are expected to have articles that people might be interested in
reading. With the thousands of published journals in the world how do you
generate knowledge on demand? The fact is, that most of these journals
print just about anything that comes in the door.

Then I picked up a periodical on educational psychology and about the
third article I read was a study that rated a series of serious
peer reviewed journals. This study demonstrated that even some of
the highest rated journals don't even follow their own guidelines for
testing the veracity of the data. Only 20% of the articles in some
2500 or so articles followed the journal guidelines for testing data.

The fact is that most of what passes for knowledge in the world today
is no more reliable than it was when the Popes allowed the world to
think that the world was flat.

And being published in a peer reviewed journal is about as much a
guarantee of correct procedures as if it were published in Playboy's
editorial column.

While I agree that there isn't a better way, the competition to earn
a living by doing something like editing a journal simply will not
result in quantifyably correct information and advances in knowledge
without personal integrity and that seems to be a commodity that is
terribly short supply in the world today.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Steve Lusky 7/21/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) responded to Dorre with a good
puzzle.  He copied parts of Dorre's message which had seven
questions.  At the very end he gave six responses in one line to each
of her "sentences that ends in a question mark":

> No.  I don't know.  No.  Not a question.  Not a question.  Maybe.

Which of the seven questions did Dave not answer?

Dorre's first question:
> >    Are you serious???

This is the first sentence that ends in a question mark.  Is Dave
answering "No" to this?  I submit that this is the question he
skipped.  Given Dave's distorted reality, ending in three question
marks is not ending in one, so he must be reasoning that it does not
end in a question mark.  However, No must be the answer anyway, as the
remaining answers imply.

Then the remaining six questions must be what our dauntless Dave must
have been replying to:

> >    Don't you think someone should enlighten them about the true risks?
Dave:  "No."
It is common among helmet zealots to ignore facts and denigrate education.  

> >    Don't you think that this continual harping on about helmets for
> >cyclists (and that unhelmeted cyclists should pay for the tretment if
> >injured) gives people the wrong impression about the relative danger?
Dave:  "I don't know."
Dave has no clue about bike safety nor risk compensation.

> >Don't you think it puts people off cycling, and encourages them to drive
> >instead?  
Dave:  "No."

> > ... Despite the fact that it would be much better for their


> >health, and the community as a whole, if they cycled?
Dave:  "Not a question."
Obviously Dorre is extending the question above, so Dave implies his
answer is also No.

> >    As well as being anti-cyclist, it's stupid to say that one group of
> >road users should wear helmets, while another group who faces an almost
> >identical risk hardly ever hears it?
Dave:  "Not a question."
Again Dorre extends a prior question, so Dave implies his answer is again No.

> ...  Getting more


> >people to cycle is, in the end, the way to make life better and safer for all
> >cyclists.  Isn't that what we all want?
Dave:  "Maybe."

Dave is not interested in improving cycling.  Ding!  Ding!  Ding!
Dave is indeed not being serious.

> So you are not really against people wearing a helmet while riding
> a bike.  You're just a rabid pro-helmet activist who wants to see auto
> drivers wearing helmets too.

No, Dave.  Dorre wants people to be aware of risks, and to minimize
them.  If you promote helmets for bicycling, you should also promote
them for car users given the comparable risks and benefits.  Dorre
also promotes bicycle safety, for which helmets is at best a minor
factor.  You deny the major factors, so you fall back on helmets.
Fine, that is your choice, but beware that you are an "accident"
waiting to happen.  That you promote the same for others is to the
detriment of the health of bicyclists and bicycling.

In another of Dave's ripostes:


  Clearly, you'll never get closure in this situation if I keep
  following up to your posts.  I'm debating doing so just to see
  how long you'll go on repeating your tired arguments, sort of as
  a combination practical joke and brilliant illustration of your
  helplessness in this situation

Oh Dave, you flatter yourself with such inanity.  Your brilliance, if
any, is in propagandizing for helmets.  If helmet promoters spent half
their energy on bike safety, we would be well on the way to the
federal goal of doubling bicycling (and walking) transportation trips
with 10% fewer injuries, a 55% reduction in injury rate.


To readers interested in bicycling: Don't read this thread.  Go for a
bike ride.  Keep Effective Cycling principles in mind, and be
satisfied that your cycling is one of the most healthy lifetime
activities you can do.

Best wishes,
Steve


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/21/98 12:00 AM

ANd what about the rest of the riders?
Voigt wasn't wearing one, agnulotto was wearing a hat. Tyler Hamilton
got heat stroke. Was he wearing a helmet?
Cippolini (probably not the best example) also retired claiming the
heat. He was wearing an old style hairnet helmet.

And the average speed of the stage is something far in excess of the
speeds at which I climb hills when either towing my daughter in atrailer
or with my usual panniers etc on a heavy MTB on my commute.

I accept that helmets are no problem with heat *IF YOU ARE MOVING FAST
ENOUGH* which from my simple assessments would be something about
12-15mph minimum on the flat and faster up hills.

I am looking for a well ventilated (but not extortionately priced)
helmet so that I can participate in events where the organisers have
decided that helmets should be worn by all.

Any suggestions welcome.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Barryt59 7/21/98 12:00 AM
These seem to be two groups that will never either be reconciled or converted.
Why don't the nelmet and non-helmet people just agree to disagree and move on
to something else.  Something more important.   Like, what's the best topping
on pizza?
Barry Harmon

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/21/98 12:00 AM
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,
>   David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
> >
> > Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
> > I accept them fully.
>
> David, I want to say something about this.
>
> Last night I was in a college library while my wife was researching
> an educational psychology paper. I walked throught the aisles of
> peer reviewed journals and felt a great sadness.
>
> Knowledge is built on knowledge. But ignorance is also built upon ignorance.
> Peer reviewed journals are like every other periodical -- they have deadlines
> and they are expected to have articles that people might be interested in
> reading. With the thousands of published journals in the world how do you
> generate knowledge on demand? The fact is, that most of these journals
> print just about anything that comes in the door.
snip

> And being published in a peer reviewed journal is about as much a
> guarantee of correct procedures as if it were published in Playboy's
> editorial column.

I review papers for a particular journal. We do not print 'anything that
comes in the door'. The criteria are that the papers should reach an
acceptable level of scientific soundness and that they will be cited by
others than the original authors. So we reject outright the majority of
papers that come in to the journal. We accept those that are of a
suitable standard typically only after ensuring that the standard is
high enough (usually demanding improvements to the presentation and
subsequent experiments to close logical holes). The problem is in
attracting high quality papers, and getting rid of the dross without too
much of a load on the (voluntary) reviewers. It typically takes me at
least three working days to review a paper, more if I have to do
extensive reading etc. around it.

WHat is a problem is the tendency to 1) aim for the least publishable
unit, and 2) the pressure to have a long list of papers in ones resume
(which leads to 1).

The paper we discussed, I have actually read (I went to the library and
found it).
It is reasonably sound given the nature of the field. WHat is a problem
is that it is not relevant to the slow, unfit cyclists that we all claim
to be. And unfortunately some newspaper editors and journalists with a
scientific nous slightly lower than the average lab rat stretch its
relevance far beyond the bounds of credibility.

So yes I accept the work was done well. It may well have been done with
the aim of competition in mind, it certainly wasn't done with the
average transport cyclist in mind.

One can accept the results of a study but be critical about their
relevance.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/21/98 12:00 AM
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

> Again, windspeed is significant. Surface area to volume really doesn't
> vary all that much for the vaste majority of riders. You don't see
> someone 100 lb.s overweight cycling up Col du Tourmalet. Well, maybe
> one of those German guys....

Try weight to height as a first approximation. Someone like Pantani is
'Whippet thin' at around 56 kgs and 1.72 tall.

Take a quick approximation of the weight as a cylinder and you get about
20 which is a very high surface area to volume ratio.
Take someone like me and I have an equivalent ratio of over 26
Ullrich has a ratio of about 22
even the biggest guys in the peloton have ratios less than 23.5

It may make a difference as I have less area on which to disperse heat,
that area suffers from too much insulation, and the only reasonably fat
free part is my head. So I could put some insulation on that..

I think the speed is the most important factor though.
The others do contribute.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b3c69e....@news.mindspring.com>,
dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:

>tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>>Great, but don't think that your helmet is increasing your "safety" cause
>>it ain't.
>
>My gosh, were you there when I crashed?  Where did I hit my
>head, and how hard?  How did you conclude that, based on
>your observation of my accidents, my helmet didn't make a
>difference?  
>
>You've misunderstood my point, of course.  I now understand that
>this issue is deeply tied in to your ego and sense of self.  To admit
>that your position makes no sense would, for you, be tantamount
>to admitting that you are a failure as a person.  So I don't expect
>much from you.  I, on the other hand, could care less about this
>whole thing.  As I've said many times, it doesn't bother me that
>you won't wear a helmet, because I think it's your business and
>not mine.  Likewise, my decision to wear a helmet is my business,
>and not yours.

Oh, it's better than you think, Dave.  Kunich *does* wear a helmet!  It's
just that he doesn't think impure thoughts about it.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B2B5...@onramp.net>, jdin...@onramp.net wrote:

>I wear a helmet most of the time.  I ride in the 100+f temperatures
>everyday, so I'm somewhat acclimated to it.  Still, I ride a fine line
>between speed and heat.  Today, I got dizzy for a moment, at the end of
>a thirty mile ride, with a few hours of rock climbing.  For just a
>second, I lost control over my balance and found that my belly button
>was riding on my brake hood.  This was the only indication I had, that
>the heat was getting to me.  I got my bike back under control and didn't
>crash.  The thought of that near face plant, is frightening still.  Even
>now, I have no recollection of what really happened beyond the feeling
>of weakness and the panic to regain control.
>
>This begs some questions...
>1. Would this have happened if the helmet hadn't been helping my head
>retain heat?

I'll refrain from giving your "my helmet almost killed me" story the
treatment that is usually given to "my helmet saved my life" stories.  But
I will ask whether you're sure your head would have been significantly
cooler without a helmet, while in motion.  My own experience is it makes
no difference until I stop.

>2. I know, that had I gone down, I would've landed on my face.  Would a
>helmet have saved me from injuries?
>3. Should I consider not wearing a helmet on dangerously hot days?
>
>I'm considering number 3.  I don't ride in the extremely unsafe
>conditions that many other riders do.  I don't crash a lot.  I don't get
>doored twice a week.  I don't get hit by cars often.  I don't do deep
>steep descents at high speeds down twisty mountian slopes in the rain.
>In fact, my cycling falls have been rare events and I've never hit my
>head.  I used to crash a lot on motorcycles, but still, I never
>scratched a helmet then, either.
>
>If a helmet is going to increase my odds of passing out, and crashing,
>then why should I wear one?

I'm having a hard time imagining why you've worn one for this long.  The
risk of being ticketed for violation of the helmet law is minimal, and
even if you were ticketed it seems like the price would be a small one to
pay for added comfort and safety.

>Now I know, that some posters have insisted, the heat related
>difficulties are a myth.  That no one can die from heat exposure.  I
>don't know where they get there information from, but evidently, they've
>led sheltered lives.

Don't know who you mean -- I've only seen posts like my own, which just
point out that *not everyone* is highly susceptible to heat.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B3AA32...@home.com>, Tom Kunich
<elizab...@home.com> wrote:

>RipTide wrote:
>>
>> tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Excuse me, but you remember no such thing. I think that you are
>> > remembering (or mis-remembering) an advertisement from either Bell
>> > or Specialized. Both have made the same sorts of stupid claims
>> > without any data to back it up.
>> >
>> Whilst it isn't exactly the same as I thought (although there is a
>> mention of it in the last quote) check out
>>
>> http://www.smf.org/Articles/LA_Times97_8.html
>>
>> I dont think this counts as advertorial
>
>Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
>want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
>of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.

Actually, Tom, it's up to you to find out who funded the study before you
go around claiming to know the answer.

I think it's interesting that the guy who's always screaming "Read the
studies!" should also scream "That doesn't count!" when someone cites a
study he hasn't heard about.

>For one thing, I don't think that many people who ride at 20 mph
>complain about the heat. You can see the heat complaints here often
>and they always refer to climbing in the sun at low speeds. I know
>that I tried it and was forced to remove my helmet on at least one
>occasion and removal of the helmet caused IMMEDIATE relief.
>
>Judging by the fact that the heat problem is a constant complaint
>by riders I defy researchers to use more realistic experiments.

There ya go.  Science a la Kunich.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p26qv$ak5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,
>  David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> > Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
>> > want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
>> > of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.
>>
>> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
>> I accept them fully.
>
>David, I think that you misunderstand me. I do not think for a moment
>that Bell Sports would generate phony information. But I do think and
>I could probably provide strong evidence if pushed, that Bell Sports
>carefully picks the projects that research helmet issues. And they
>pick them carefully to avoid the real issues. That's marketing, not
>lying.

So far you haven't shown any evidence that Bell Sports had anything to do
with this study.  So is the above statement marketing, or a lie?

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p28kb$d93$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <35B44D4A...@biotek.uio.no>,
>  David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine and
>> I accept them fully.
>
>David, I want to say something about this.
>
>Last night I was in a college library while my wife was researching
>an educational psychology paper. I walked throught the aisles of
>peer reviewed journals and felt a great sadness.
>
>Knowledge is built on knowledge. But ignorance is also built upon ignorance.
>Peer reviewed journals are like every other periodical -- they have deadlines
>and they are expected to have articles that people might be interested in
>reading. With the thousands of published journals in the world how do you
>generate knowledge on demand? The fact is, that most of these journals
>print just about anything that comes in the door.

[...and on and on like that]

I'll remember this the next time one of the anti-helmet ayatollahs screams
at me about how I have to read the studies before I can say anything about
helmets.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/21/98 12:00 AM

Bob Cardone (cardone!@mindspring.com) writes:
> Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>>I've climbed many times in severe heat in Europe and tried with or
>>without. Could find no difference. What is much cooler, however is no
>>helmet and a hat.
>>
>
> Watched the Tour last night on ESPN. Several riders claimed it was the
> hotest temperature they had ever raced in.  The Stage winner wore a
> Helmet????????  Go figure.
>

Well you wouldn't know this Bob, but many sprinters pick up their helmets from
support cars in the last 10km in preparation for the final sprint.
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/21/98 12:00 AM

That is not the issue. The issue is helmet zealots trying to force helmets
on bareheaded cyclists, either through mandatory helmet legislation, club
rules, or promotion of helmets. When the campaigns cease, "helmet wars"
will go away. Unfortunately I doubt that they will. The world is full of
interfering busybodies.

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <199807211455...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

  barr...@aol.com (Barryt59) wrote:
> These seem to be two groups that will never either be reconciled or
converted.
> Why don't the nelmet and non-helmet people just agree to disagree and move on
> to something else.  Something more important.   Like, what's the best topping
> on pizza?

Well, I keep reading people writing that and wonder what you're talking
about. I don't scream at people riding down the street to "get their
helmets". I don't say that someone is stupid for not wearing a helmet.
I don't suggest that bicyclists without helmets that get into accidents
should have the safety net of public services withheld if they are injured.
I don't tell all and sundry that will listen that in order to ride a bicycle
they first need to buy a helmet. I don't preface all speeches about
cycling with a statement such as, "Get a helmet and always wear it." I
don't tell people who put in absurdly more mileage than I do, that I
think that they are crazy for not wearing a helmet. I don't suggest to
anyone that if they are wearing a helmet and are struck fall off head first
and hit a curb that they will be good as new if they are wearing a helmet.
I don't tell long boring stories about what a terrible accident I got into
and then tell everyone that now that I've seen the light and even though
in that terrible accident I didn't hit my head, I now will not ride without
a helmet. I don't expect miracles from helmets and I don't suggest that
others expect miracles.

But the helmet zealots have suggest every single one of these things.

I do wear a helmet. I don't think that it will have any significant
effect on a serious accident. And I do think that people who so strongly
believe in helmets that they must lie to all they meet about them deserve
to be shown for what they are.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <casseres-210...@cassda.apple.com>,

  cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
> Actually, Tom, it's up to you to find out who funded the study before you
> go around claiming to know the answer.

Sure -- just show me the citation. In case you're too stupid to understand
it -- there was no citation of any study in the newspaper article quoted.
Only a discussion that suggested that one had been made.

So if you'll give me the citation I'll look it up. What is it?

> There ya go.  Science a la Kunich.

I suggest that I at least know what to look for. You don't.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <casseres-210...@cassda.apple.com>,
  cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
> I'll remember this the next time one of the anti-helmet ayatollahs screams
> at me about how I have to read the studies before I can say anything about
> helmets.

David, I'd be surprised to find out that you could even find a
study to read. My take on it is that you don't even know how to
use a card file, let alone a search engine.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p2dvf$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,

  ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>
> Well you wouldn't know this Bob, but many sprinters pick up their helmets from
> support cars in the last 10km in preparation for the final sprint.

Even more interestingly is that Bell Sports at least used to pay a
substantial bonus if you were wearing a Bell helmet during a race win
and you didn't even have to be under contract or anything.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Garry Lee 7/21/98 12:00 AM

>Well you wouldn't know this Bob, but many sprinters pick up their helmets from
>support cars in the last 10km in preparation for the final sprint.

Now why would they do that Avery when everyone knows helmets are worse
than useless????????????


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti Bill Zaumen 7/21/98 12:00 AM

Avery and the rest of the crew seem mostly to want to dump on any claim
that helmets might help you in a crash.  One of these people will
grudgingly accept helmet use to prevent what he calls "cosmetic damage"
(a euphemism for injuries that would let a plastic surgeon make a good
living).

The crew has yet to complain about the use of a helmet to reduce air
resistance.  That gives them yet another out, as most of these guys use
helmets themselves and would otherwise have some explaining to do.

If you want to use one, you have to spout off a reason that they find
acceptable or they will call you all sorts of names!

Bill

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jim West 7/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p32e6$ea3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

 <tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
>In article <casseres-210...@cassda.apple.com>,
>  cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>>
>> Actually, Tom, it's up to you to find out who funded the study before you
>> go around claiming to know the answer.
>
>Sure -- just show me the citation. In case you're too stupid to understand
>it -- there was no citation of any study in the newspaper article quoted.
>Only a discussion that suggested that one had been made.

M. Sheffield-Moore et al., "Thermoregulatory responses to cycling with
and without a helmet," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
vol. 26, num. 6, pp. 755-761, June 1997. The story gave the author and
the journal, and said that it was being published near the date of the
story. That made finding it trivial.

It is an interesting read.

jw

>
>So if you'll give me the citation I'll look it up. What is it?
>
>> There ya go.  Science a la Kunich.
>
>I suggest that I at least know what to look for. You don't.
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum


--
Jim West                                  jw...@emag.ecen.okstate.edu
Associate Professor                       jw...@master.ceat.okstate.edu
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/22/98 12:00 AM

Garry Lee (NOSPA...@iol.ie) writes:
>>Well you wouldn't know this Bob, but many sprinters pick up their helmets from
>>support cars in the last 10km in preparation for the final sprint.
>
> Now why would they do that Avery when everyone knows helmets are worse
> than useless????????????
>

Not useless for marketing when the telly is interested in only the
final sprint.


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Garry Lee 7/22/98 12:00 AM
I don't preach about or against them. I wear one always. I've had two
friends die of head injuries from bicycle falls and believe that a helmet
will prevent minor head injury, will downgrade moderate and possibly
severe head injuries. People quote statistics all the time but from my
knowledge of epidemiology, many things which are now accepted were damned
hard to demonstrate statistically. Where you have a lot of variables you
have statistical difficulty. It is as plain as a pikestaff that all of the
safety equipment in rally cars prevents many many deaths in drivers. You
don't need statistics for that. It is also plain that Chris Boardman might
have been killed were it not for his helmet.


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Garry Lee 7/22/98 12:00 AM
Why don't you write to Mr.Boardman and ask him how useless helmets are?


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/22/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p2p83$tf3$2...@news1.news.iol.ie>,

  Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> >Well you wouldn't know this Bob, but many sprinters pick up their helmets
from
> >support cars in the last 10km in preparation for the final sprint.
>
> Now why would they do that Avery when everyone knows helmets are worse
> than useless????????????

Because the helmet companies pay a bonus if the winner is wearing a helmet.
As a doctor I'm sure that you're familiar with the power of remuneration.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/22/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p34ca$iij$1...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,

  nob...@netz.eng.sun.com wrote:
>
> One of these people will grudgingly accept helmet use to prevent what he
> calls "cosmetic damage" (a euphemism for injuries that would let a plastic
> surgeon make a good living).

So, now your claim is that so many cyclists are physically damaged that
plastic surgeons could make a good living off of them alone? Can you
cite where you've gotten such information?

How many people do you know that have required cosmetic surgery because
of bicycling accidents Bill? How many people do you know that would have
been hideously deformed from bicycling accidents without the power of
modern medicine?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/22/98 12:00 AM

Garry Lee (NOSPA...@iol.ie) writes:

> I don't preach about or against them.

Why then do you post so often on the subject? You started this thread but
added nothing that hasn't already been said. You made stuff up about Fabio
Casartelli, as you are prone to do. Posters pointed out your false
description of that tragedy. You carry on preaching in favour of them
(helmets).

> I wear one always.

Good. Now the world knows what a good little boy mommy raised.
Go ride your trike.

Anyone can speculate. Boardman "might" have been able to remember what
happen were it not for his helmet.

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/22/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p3s2s$v8j$1...@news2.news.iol.ie>,

  Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> It is also plain that Chris Boardman might  have been killed were it
> not for his helmet.

This is a statement I have trouble accepting Garry. Granted he was
knocked a bit silly from a blow to the brow ridge (so have I been,
without a helmet, on my sailboat) and I accept your statements that
there was damage to the top of his helmet. But he seems to have had
no signs of acceleration injuries and suggesting that damage to the
helmet signifies avoided damage to the head doesn't necessarily follow.

You say that complex physical situations are difficult to statistically
analyze. If that is so how is anything ever discovered in the low signal-
to-noise areas? Statistical analysis is that only tool that CAN discover
these relationships.

But let's be honest about it. You are biased towards helmets because
you think that they may have saved the lives of friends. I am similarly
biased though I've not seen a serious head injury to bicyclists. I do
know that they occur and wearing a helmet to prevent a minor head injury
seems a small price to pay as long as the sum cost isn't too great. I
don't think that you'd be suggesting a helmet if they weighed 2 lb.s
and cost $200 U.S. Or if they were known to cause heat prostration in
rather short order. Rather, helmets are more expensive than they should
be by quite a lot, and a large contingent of riders complain that they
are too hot and too heavy. This is denigrated by others who don't find
these limitations.

But the statistics show QUITE plainly that helmets make no appreicable
difference in the rates of serious and fatal head injuries so there
appears to be no basis at all in your belief that helmets may moderate
very serious head injuries.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/22/98 12:00 AM
chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry) wrote:

>I should know better than to get involved in this stupid, interminable
>thread... but here goes.
>
>In article <35ADC5EC...@biotek.uio.no>,
>David Martin  <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>>I've tried it. A helmet is not for me. DOn't describe me as stupid. If
>>you are falling off so much that you are in need of a helmet, well maybe
>>you should reevaluate who is the stupid one. DOnt forget that a helmet
>>will help at most in about 50% of head injury accidents, and for serious
>>ones hardly at all.
>
>Having had one concussion in a cycling accident (got doored passing a
>line of parked cars), I will gladly wear a helmet if it improves my
>chances of avoiding another concussion.  

Funny. One of the very first and most important safety lessons my two
children had to learn when I started to teach them safe street
bicycling: NEVER RIDE WHERE YOU MIGHT GET DOORED.    This included
learing and memorizing how wide a fully opened car door is (most
people, not just children alone grossly underesimate that distance, its
about 1 m), learning that,  for a decently fast rider, it is almost
impossible to avoid a suddelny openened door (can be demonstrated,
too), learning that, while a good idea in theory, it is not always
practical to check by looking through the back window, and finally,
that fear of moving traffic might push us back near to those dangerous
doors, an effect which has to be conciously suppressed.

Am I guessing right that this is completely news to you, because your
bicycling safety education was 1. wear a helmet, 2. wear a helmet, 3
wear a helmet?

Then let me tell you two facts you might want to know.

First. The sharp edge of an opened car door might easily split your
helmet (and your skull) like a hot knife cuts into butter.

Second. If you avoid the door, you might find yourself thrown at a car
overtaking you at this very moment at high speed. How is a 12 mph
helmet called when hit by a 55 mph car? Disposable wrapping.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/22/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

> [...] Wearing a helmet is the *first*
>physical safety measure of a cyclist.  It is analogous to wearing
>a seat belt in a car - NOT a bike helmet.  

No. It is analogous to wearing a helmet in addition to that seat belt
in a car.

It is well known (and has been beaten to death here) that even WITH
seat belts and with air bags as a standard safety measure established
long ago, many more people die from head injuries in cars than on
bikes, and it is well known that even with belts, head and brain
injuries are the most probable cause of death in a car.

So I hold back from commenting on the rest of your strawman arguments.


PS: I just came back from a three week/four state journey around the
New England area.  To my surprise, outside the recreational areas I saw
more motorcyclists riding heavy motorcycles than I saw bicyclists.
Almost all of the motorcyclist where showing a fast, but decent driving
style and most where NOT wearing any helmet. (That's different for,
say, Italy, where the heavy machines are ridden mostly wearing helmets,
but the light ones - mostly scooters, of course - are generally ridden
bareheaded, and different from Germany, where almost 100% of motorized
bikes - any size - are ridden helmeted, because of the MHL).  

In contrast, I rarely saw a bicyclist NOT wearing a helmet, and most of
these people where slow and appearently somehow insecure in their
riding style, compared to what I am accustomed to. Riding on sidewalks
or in a way completely foreign to me (up an down sidewalks, following
an almost unforseeable line) was much more common than around here in
Germany.

This bizarre behaviour IMHO can't be explained by the automobilists
behaviour. Not at all. Generally, I found American drivers of cars to
be much more calm and polite than what I see and have to expect here.
In addition, most lanes are much wider than what we have, and so can be
easily shared - something which is the execption rather than the rule
here.

PPS: Fast bicyclists shouting "on your left" instead of breaking on
paths which are barely wide enough for walking are a real plage, over
there. Said my youngest, after almost getting hit from behind by such a
fool on a MTB on a narrow path bordering one of Bostons parks, i.e. in
arms reach of a road perfectly useable for cycling, "what did he
shout?", and, after giving the proper translation , "yea, I understood
this very well, but, dad, what does it _mean_, 'on your left'?".

PPPS: Of course this guy was wearing a helmet. Let's hope that Bell
Sports doesn't get into the business of selling lances, too.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Frank Krygowski 7/22/98 12:00 AM

In a previous article, NOSPA...@iol.ie (Garry Lee) says:

>People quote statistics all the time but from my
>knowledge of epidemiology, many things which are now accepted were damned
>hard to demonstrate statistically. Where you have a lot of variables you
>have statistical difficulty.

I don't know much about the regulation of medical remedies in Ireland,
where Gary is from, but here in the US, such remedies must be proven before
they can be marketed.

It's absolutely normal to have "a lot of variables" in these (and many
other) situations.  A new pharmaceutical will likely be consumed by men,
women, young, old, fat, slim, white, black, active, inactive people...  Yet
the FDA feels that, after proper testing, it can judge whether a certain
remedy is effective.

Now it's true that the gold-standard "double-blind" method of testing can't
be used with bicycle helmets.  But nonetheless, I feel that if the FDA were
forced to pass judgement on the available studies on helmet efficacy,
they'd outlaw their promotion _for the purpose of reducing serious
injuries_.

Essentially what you have is collection of studies with widely varying
results.  The most famous pro-helmet study is a small one with self-selected
subjects.  The FDA would toss it out based on that alone.

The large studies with little or no self-selection show no detectable
benefit regarding serious injuries.  My guess is the FDA would note that,
and force a change in advertising and promotion.  Remember "Carter's Little
Liver Pills"?  After FDA study, they were forced to remove the word "liver"
from their advertising.  We might eventually see Bell ads saying "Protect
your head from little bumps and scrapes."

>It is as plain as a pikestaff that all of the
>safety equipment in rally cars prevents many many deaths in drivers. You
>don't need statistics for that. It is also plain that Chris Boardman might
>have been killed were it not for his helmet.

Personally, I have no problem with bike racers wearing helmets, if they
choose.  First, their competitive riding causes far more crashes than
ordinary cycling.  And second, their crash impacts are much closer to
the design limits for helmets.  But I don't see why that translates
into helmets for every rider, any more than rally drivers' roll cages,
racing helmets and four-point harnesses are used for every motorist.


Incidentally: one way of seeing if Boardman "might" have been killed
without the helmet is to look at the history of bicycle racing.  We've got
over 100 years of records of bike races, don't we?  How many racers have
died in similar crashes?  Is it really that common?  Does anybody have
figures?
--

Frank Krygowski ae...@yfn.ysu.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti Bill Zaumen 7/22/98 12:00 AM
In article 1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com, tku...@diabloresearch.com writes:
> In article <6p34ca$iij$1...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>   nob...@netz.eng.sun.com wrote:
> >
> > One of these people will grudgingly accept helmet use to prevent what he
> > calls "cosmetic damage" (a euphemism for injuries that would let a plastic
> > surgeon make a good living).
>
> So, now your claim is that so many cyclists are physically damaged that
> plastic surgeons could make a good living off of them alone? Can you
> cite where you've gotten such information?
>

You are the idiot who rants about cosmetic damage, aren't you?  Are you
now into denial mode?  I though "cosmetic damage" was your excuse for
using a helmet while simultaneously pouting about how uselss helmets
are.  Are you suggesting that having your hair slide along the pavement
at 20 mph will improve your appearance?  I mean, I know one person with
a small bald spot that was the result of just such an impact.

Bill
***
***
***
***

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/22/98 12:00 AM
ae...@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank Krygowski) wrote:

>
>In a previous article, NOSPA...@iol.ie (Garry Lee) says:
>
>

Much Tripe snipped


00 years of records of bike races, don't we?  How many racers have
>died in similar crashes?  Is it really that common?  Does anybody have
>figures?
>--
>
>Frank Krygowski ae...@yfn.ysu.edu
\

On and On and ON!   God help Us   <G> It's friggin boring as hell.  


Bob

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/22/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p4stv$jq9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>You say that complex physical situations are difficult to statistically
>analyze. If that is so how is anything ever discovered in the low signal-
>to-noise areas? Statistical analysis is that only tool that CAN discover
>these relationships.

Well, no, there's (dare I bring it up again?) high school physics.

>But the statistics show QUITE plainly that helmets make no appreicable
>difference in the rates of serious and fatal head injuries so there
>appears to be no basis at all in your belief that helmets may moderate
>very serious head injuries.

No basis in statistical epidemiology.  Fortunately, that isn't the only
science known to us.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 7/22/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b8ee2a....@news.gmd.de>,

  Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>
> First. The sharp edge of an opened car door might easily split your
> helmet (and your skull) like a hot knife cuts into butter.

I can't stress this too much. I was riding in a group carefully through
the downtown section of Livermore. This town has narrow streets and the
main street is just wide enough for four lanes of traffic and parking
each side. Traffic is generally too heavy and we were forced to stay too
close to the parked cars.

Just as I got up to a car the door flew open. I pulled my hand out of the
way just in time but my handlebar struck the edge of the door and I
somehow managed to keep the bike up while swerving over the whole lane and
almost getting whacked by the car one lane out. I pulled over and looked
at the bike and the handlebar tape was neatly severed as if by a razor blade
where the door had hit the handlebar. JUST WHERE MY FINGERS HAD BEEN!

> Second. If you avoid the door, you might find yourself thrown at a car
> overtaking you at this very moment at high speed. How is a 12 mph
> helmet called when hit by a 55 mph car? Disposable wrapping.

This is the most dangerous part of such a manuveur. If you hit the
door and ricochet out into the street you may be run over before
other drivers can react.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Sara Easler 7/22/98 12:00 AM

Frank writes:

|> the design limits for helmets.  But I don't see why that translates
|> into helmets for every rider, any more than rally drivers' roll cages,
|> racing helmets and four-point harnesses are used for every motorist.

Exactly.  By Golly, I'll bet Richard Petty is glad he had a helmet on
too. So What!?

RE: Heat and helmets - It's not only heat, it's discomfort which is a
highly subjective. The helmet/heat studies remind of Consumers Reports
Cookie Evaluations. Sorry, I just don't take them very seriously.


Sara

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Garry Lee 7/22/98 12:00 AM

>over 100 years of records of bike races, don't we?  How many racers have
>died in similar crashes?

More than none, certainly.

Agostino the great Portuguese killed when sprinting in the tour of
Portugal. He hit a dog and was killed.
2 cyclists I know of in Ireland, one whom I know personally, with severe
personality changes after racing crashes.
I can't quote any more off the top of my head, but it's not something I've
studied.


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Garry Lee 7/22/98 12:00 AM
You made stuff up about Fabio
>Casartelli, as you are prone to do. Posters pointed out your false
>description of that tragedy.

Listen here Burdett, you ignorant gobshite, you've just called me a liar.
What I said about Casartelli was totally the truth and the other stuff was
propaganda put out immediately after the accident by the tour people. The
usual smokescreen. If you go to the bother to dig you will find out I'm
right. But you wouldn't like that, would you?
I post things about helmets to counter the puerile nonsense people like
you write about them. I'm interested in truth, a concept you might find
difficult.


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Garry Lee 7/22/98 12:00 AM
I totally agree with you about
Doors. I'm a fanatic about that.

I've cycled in town since I was 7 (Im now 48) and have never been knocked
off my bike. I ride like a car.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/22/98 12:00 AM

Wolfgang, welcome to the strange world of North American cycling. Now
you know first hand why it's so easy to fool people here into buying
bicycle helmets. Riding competence? Nah, who needs it when you've got the
magic of styrofoam on your head?


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/22/98 12:00 AM

Frank Krygowski (ae...@yfn.ysu.edu) writes:
.............

> Incidentally: one way of seeing if Boardman "might" have been killed
> without the helmet is to look at the history of bicycle racing.  We've got
> over 100 years of records of bike races, don't we?  How many racers have
> died in similar crashes?  Is it really that common?  Does anybody have
> figures?
> --

In 95 years of the TdF three fatalities. Simpson from effects of drugs,
Casartelli, and one other who dropped into a ravine - cause of death not
known.

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. B_Davies 7/22/98 12:00 AM
Ok, break it up.
move along now...

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jim Quinn 7/22/98 12:00 AM

tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

> In article <35b8ee2a....@news.gmd.de>,
>   Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
> >
> > First. The sharp edge of an opened car door might easily split your
> > helmet (and your skull) like a hot knife cuts into butter.
>
> I can't stress this too much. I was riding in a group carefully through
> the downtown section of Livermore. This town has narrow streets and the
> main street is just wide enough for four lanes of traffic and parking
> each side. Traffic is generally too heavy and we were forced to stay too
> close to the parked cars.
>
> Just as I got up to a car the door flew open. I pulled my hand out of the
> way just in time but my handlebar struck the edge of the door and I
> somehow managed to keep the bike up while swerving over the whole lane and
> almost getting whacked by the car one lane out. I pulled over and looked
> at the bike and the handlebar tape was neatly severed as if by a razor blade
> where the door had hit the handlebar. JUST WHERE MY FINGERS HAD BEEN!

Hey Tom you need to talk to Wolfgang Strobl,  As he said in a previous post.

Funny. One of the very first and most important safety lessons my two
children had to learn when I started to teach them safe street
bicycling: NEVER RIDE WHERE YOU MIGHT GET DOORED

Obviously you must be one of those always wear a helmet fanatics or you would
have learned to NEVER RIDE WHERE YOU MIGHT GET DOORED.  Also even if you did get
doored all anti-helmet people know how to fall so that they never get hurt.


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. cycl...@my-dejanews.com 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p3r9s$v82$2...@news2.news.iol.ie>,

  Garry Lee <NOSPA...@iol.ie> wrote:
> Why don't you write to Mr.Boardman and ask him how useless helmets are?
>

>
OK OK OK, it is time to bury this thread ! This "discussion"is going nowhere.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tom Kunich 7/23/98 12:00 AM
David Martin wrote:
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
> > want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
> > of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.
>
> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine
> and I accept them fully.
>
> Its just that they apply to fit college level atheletes at a windspeed
> of 20mph.

Actually there was quite a bit more to the 'study' than that. the
methodology was very good with a few exceptions:

1) The rated "head" temperature where there wasn't a single temperature
measurement of the head under the helmet. They seemed to have a problem
figuring out that the area under the helmet is probably the area most in
need of testing for higher temperatures. (In case anyone complains that
it's difficult to place a theristor there, they didn't hesitate to jam a
thermister 10 cm up the riders rectum.) Moreover, the head temperature
measurements were ALL on the fron of the face in the direct airflow from
the power fan colling the rider. Hardly the ideal place to measure the
temperature don't you think?

2) The analysis of the data struck me as being pretty far out in left
field. For instance: they tried to measure 'real' effort by measuring
the amount of sweat the rider put out. Then claimed that it was the same
for helmeted and unhelmeted riders. Of course all that means is that the
maximum flow for that rider was achieved early -- maximum flow is
maximum flow.

And the authors stated that they couldn't find any difference in the
heat generated by helmeted or unhelmeted riders. Yet they had both the
riders perception and the proof of measurements, to wit: The riders
showed and average of almost 1 degree f. in perceived heat increase with
the helmets over what they felt without. Moreover, the heart rate
measurements CLEARLY showed about 3 beats difference between helmeted
and unhelmeted riders. That is proof that there was a significant
performance advantage of not wearing a helmet.

So even under the best possible conditions there was a measureable
difference in the heat and performance of a rider wearing a helmet and
the same rider unhelmeted.

> virtually irrelevant to a 20-30 ound overweight lump climbing a steep
> hill at under 5 mph.

Certainly, moreover the test were done at an amazingly low level of 60%
of measured AT! This is vey low effort levels for trained athletes and
is a lower level than most recreational cyclists ride.

Oh yes, in response to David Casseres comments that I shouldn't assume
that such tests are sponsored by Bell Sports: He was quite right. The
tests were not sponsored by Bell Sports. They were sponsored by
Specialized.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/23/98 12:00 AM
Garry Lee wrote:

> Listen here Burdett, you ignorant gobshite, you've just called me a liar.
> What I said about Casartelli was totally the truth and the other stuff was
> propaganda put out immediately after the accident by the tour people. The
> usual smokescreen. If you go to the bother to dig you will find out I'm
> right. But you wouldn't like that, would you?

You were right about the injuries, to the top of the head.
It was howevere the opinion of the doctors who treated him that a helmet
would have made virtually no difference in that accident.

He did hit the edge of a concrete block headfirst at a somewhat
excessive speed, exceeding the rating for a helmet on a flat surface
with just the weight of the head.

So you were right about the injuries and you were wrong about the effect
of a helmet.

I apologise for my earlier error.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/23/98 12:00 AM
Garry Lee wrote:
> What I said about Casartelli was totally the truth and the other stuff was
> propaganda put out immediately after the accident by the tour people. The
> usual smokescreen.

I'll call your bluff Garry.
Sources please, and if you are right I will apologise publically.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Michael Brideson 7/23/98 12:00 AM
Having had a collision with a 4wd and subsequently spending two weeks in
hospital recovering with a total of 55 stitches in my legs and face, I'm
pretty damn glad I was wearing a helmet. My injuries could have been a
heckuva lot worse. I'm also thankful for amnesia because I was told I
was not a pretty sight!

Certainly when I go riding I don't want to go out in a protective
capsule, but wearing a helmet is such a minor burden. Sure, being
streetwise is a major component of staying out of an ambulance. But
wearing a helmet just helps that little bit more too.

Here in Queensland (Australia), it is illegal to ride a bicycle without
one. The only person who I've heard complain about it is my wife who
grew up on the bicycle-friendly, non-helmet-wearing roads of Holland.

Just wear it!!!

-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brideson
Centre for Medical and Health Physics
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Australia.
+61 7 3864 4281
m.bri...@student.qut.edu.au

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/23/98 12:00 AM
Michael Brideson <m.bri...@student.qut.edu.au> wrote:

>Certainly when I go riding I don't want to go out in a protective
>capsule, but wearing a helmet is such a minor burden.

So I guess you wear your helmet when driving your car, too?

[...]

>Here in Queensland (Australia), it is illegal to ride a bicycle without
>one.

And you  approve that, do you?


>The only person who I've heard complain about it is my wife who
>grew up on the bicycle-friendly, non-helmet-wearing roads of Holland.

The streets of Holland are a lot less bicycle-friendly than the streets
of, say, New England. Drivers are much worse, too.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/23/98 12:00 AM
Jim Quinn <jimq...@flash.net> wrote:

>Hey Tom you need to talk to Wolfgang Strobl,  As he said in a previous post.

Well, Jim, there are people who are able to learn from experience, from
observing and from sharing and deducing from it. And there are people
who are not.

I made a a few general statement about a certain aspect of cycling
safety, and Tom backed it up by giving a specific example which somehow
supports two of the points I was going to make.

Now what is your contribution to the topic, other than telling us that
you don't know and don't care?

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B6D3C4...@flash.net>,

  Jim Quinn <jimq...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> Hey Tom you need to talk to Wolfgang Strobl,  As he said in a previous post.

I talk to Wolfgang frequently. Why?

> Funny. One of the very first and most important safety lessons my two
> children had to learn when I started to teach them safe street
> bicycling: NEVER RIDE WHERE YOU MIGHT GET DOORED

And you taught your children to ride in a busy traffic lane also?

> Obviously you must be one of those always wear a helmet fanatics or you would
> have learned to NEVER RIDE WHERE YOU MIGHT GET DOORED.

As a matter of fact, I always wear my helmet, why?

> Also even if you did get doored all anti-helmet people know how to fall so
> that they never get hurt.

I got doored and didn't fall and didn't get hurt. Your point is?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/23/98 12:00 AM

Garry Lee (NOSPA...@iol.ie) writes:
>>over 100 years of records of bike races, don't we?  How many racers have
>>died in similar crashes?
>
> More than none, certainly.
>
> Agostino the great Portuguese killed when sprinting in the tour of
> Portugal. He hit a dog and was killed.
> 2 cyclists I know of in Ireland, one whom I know personally, with severe
> personality changes after racing crashes.
> I can't quote any more off the top of my head, but it's not something I've
> studied.
>
That's very self-evident.
Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. jglad...@my-dejanews.com 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b9fa2a....@news.gmd.de>,
> --
> Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic
>

with all due respect, you have clearly not ridden in Boston lately.

-Jonathan M. Gladstone

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. John Burton 7/23/98 12:00 AM
Boardman has just been on the radio giving an interview about his accident.

He said that given the way the helmet was damaged, that he believed it had
saved him from very serious injury.

He said that he thought it was only sensible for people to wear helmets when
cycling. He clearly said that he was against making it compulsory.

A spokesperson from the B.M.A. said that their position was identical, that
it was sensible for people to wear helmets but they didn't want to make it
compulsory.

This seems to me the sensible position and I completely fail to understand
why this issue has generated so much hysteria.

I don't know the position in other countries, but the hysteria seems to be
widespread. On the UK cycling group there has been as much hysteria as on
this international group, and there is no threat at all of helmets being
made compulsory here.

There you go! I continue to wear a helmet! Aren't there more interesting
things to talk about.

John


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/23/98 12:00 AM
John Burton wrote:
> I don't know the position in other countries, but the hysteria seems to be
> widespread. On the UK cycling group there has been as much hysteria as on
> this international group, and there is no threat at all of helmets being
> made compulsory here.

Don't you believe it. There are some campaigns underway to try to get
some sort of compulsory helmet wearing going and they have the support
of at least one or two government ministers. (meanwhile we will just
continue to kill people in cars and not bat an eyelid)

I look forward to seeing the BMA report on cycle helmets due out at the
end of the year.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/23/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>So I guess you wear your helmet when driving your car, too?

You and Tom are so bogus and hypocritical it makes me
want to vomit, only I haven't eaten anything yet so nothing
would come up and it would be no fun.

Let me test your hypocrisy with the following little dilemma
that I posed a while back on this thread.  Tom couldn't
give a straight answer, indicating that he's a hypocrite,
so what are you?  Let's find out:

You're kidnapped by aliens, brought up to their ship, and
told that you have three choices:  One, you will be in a bike
accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.  Three,
they will cut off your silly head and play basketball with it,
dancing around your lifeless, twitching body.  If you ask for
details about the crash (how fast, how hard, where on my
head, etc.), they stare at you for about three seconds, utterly
silent, then slowly start laughing, looking at each other
knowingly and casting glances over to the nearby basketball
court.  Time's up, you have to make a choice.  What is your
choice?  Helmet, no helmet, or your head as a basketball for
the perverse amusement of these twisted creatures?

Let me state again that Tom effectively revealed his hypocrisy
by not answering the question, choosing instead to hem and
haw and try to be funny about the specifics of how the
question was posed, etc.  Will you turn out any different?
I don't think so.  

Oh, and just to explain the significance of the aliens:  the
aliens are Fate - Fate, giving you a glimpse of your future,
and offering you the opportunity to alter its course.  But you
are only able to do one small thing to affect the course of
the rest of your life, and you are not given the chance to
avoid the situation altogether.  The unpredictability and
hence unavoidability of many accidents is signified by the
third choice the aliens (Fate) offer you - certain death.  


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/23/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:
> One, you will be in a bike
> accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
> same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.

Hmm.. sounds like an everyday occurrence, right?

Give more details on the bike accident. I'd want to be able to look at
the mechanics before making that choice. Or if there was no info
available and all you were doing on the bike was to have this crash then
I would choose the helmet, not for life protection but for minor
irritation (road rash etc).
If I had to ride up a steep hill first I'd go without the helmet.

Your example is as silly as the hit by a 2x4 analagy. Of course the
hospitals are full of cyclists who were hit by 2x4's whilst riding
bareheaded.

Hmm.. I'm off home cos its nice and sunny.
I'll probably still be riding sans helmet 30 years from now.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/23/98 12:00 AM

Michael Brideson (m.bri...@student.qut.edu.au) writes:
> Having had a collision with a 4wd and subsequently spending two weeks in
> hospital recovering with a total of 55 stitches in my legs and face, I'm
> pretty damn glad I was wearing a helmet. My injuries could have been a
> heckuva lot worse. I'm also thankful for amnesia because I was told I
> was not a pretty sight!
>
> Certainly when I go riding I don't want to go out in a protective
> capsule, but wearing a helmet is such a minor burden. Sure, being
> streetwise is a major component of staying out of an ambulance. But
> wearing a helmet just helps that little bit more too.
>
> Here in Queensland (Australia), it is illegal to ride a bicycle without
> one. The only person who I've heard complain about it is my wife who

> grew up on the bicycle-friendly, non-helmet-wearing roads of Holland.
>
> Just wear it!!!
>

So why has study after study shown no reduction in the rate of head injuries
to cyclists in Oz, just reductions in participation?

Robinson, D., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, Accident Analysis
Prevention, Vol 28, pp 463-475, 1996

Likewise in New Zealand.

Scuffham, P.A., Langley, J. D., Trend in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand
Under Voluntary Helmet Use, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No
1, 1997

So much for the nanny-state paradises down under.


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/23/98 12:00 AM

John Burton (pha...@dircon.co.uk) writes:
.........

> A spokesperson from the B.M.A. said that their position was identical, that
> it was sensible for people to wear helmets but they didn't want to make it
> compulsory.
>
> This seems to me the sensible position and I completely fail to understand
> why this issue has generated so much hysteria.
>
> I don't know the position in other countries, but the hysteria seems to be
> widespread. On the UK cycling group there has been as much hysteria as on
> this international group, and there is no threat at all of helmets being
> made compulsory here.
>

Errr, not quite .....

From uk.rec.cycling:

   ..........
   Amusingly they had the doctor on (GP, forgotten name) that proposed a
   motion at BMA conference advocating helmet compulsion saying that
   obviously if you fell off a bike, your head was likely to hit the
   ground first because that was the heaviest bit. Oh dear. Incidently the
   motion was not passed by the BMA.

   The BMA are apparently preparing a report on world-wide evidence due out
   at year end. Sounds like they will trying to weigh up how much compulsory
   helmets reduces cycling (& therefore impacts health) against how much
   protection is obtained.

   Duncan Harris, Sapio Design Ltd, Manchester, U.K.
   ~~~~~~~~~~~ mailto:dun...@sapio.co.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/23/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>
>>So I guess you wear your helmet when driving your car, too?
>
>You and Tom are so bogus and hypocritical it makes me

You were the one claiming that "wearing a helmet is such a minor
burden". So

You display a classical example of applying a double standard. You try
to press us into wearing a bizarre safety gadget during an relatively
safe everyday activity, you call me names when I ask you in turn,
whether you do so in a comparable, slightly more dangerous activity or
not.

You are the hypocrite, sir.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/23/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>You're kidnapped by aliens, brought up to their ship, and
>told that you have three choices:  One, you will be in a bike

>accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
>same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.  Three,
>they will cut off your silly head and play basketball with it,
>dancing around your lifeless, twitching body.  [...] What is your
>choice?   [...]

The correct answer is of course: you take the plane and you go away at
the first opportunity. :-}

But, pray tell, what does this have to do with bicycling?

PS: do you, perhaps, believe in Bach flower remedies, alien abductions
etc. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. dph...@my-dejanews.com 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p7v08$94a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

  jglad...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35b9fa2a....@news.gmd.de>,
>   Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
> > Michael Brideson <m.bri...@student.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > >Certainly when I go riding I don't want to go out in a protective
> > >capsule, but wearing a helmet is such a minor burden.

> >
> > So I guess you wear your helmet when driving your car, too?
> >
> > [...]

> >
> > >Here in Queensland (Australia), it is illegal to ride a bicycle without
> > >one.
> >
> > And you  approve that, do you?
> >
> > >The only person who I've heard complain about it is my wife who
> > >grew up on the bicycle-friendly, non-helmet-wearing roads of Holland.
> >
> > The streets of Holland are a lot less bicycle-friendly than the streets
> > of, say, New England. Drivers are much worse, too.
> >
> > --
> > Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic
> >
>
> with all due respect, you have clearly not ridden in Boston lately.
>
> -Jonathan M. Gladstone
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>

Well, I haven't ridden in Holland but my most recent ride in Boston
was on Tuesday.  No helmet *and* I lived to tell about it.  I find
Boston drivers predictable and reasonably skilled.

--
    --dph.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p7v08$94a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  jglad...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> with all due respect, you have clearly not ridden in Boston lately.

John, Wolfgang just got back from a vacation in New England and
after reading all of our horror stories about American traffic
around bicycles was prepared for the very worse.

As you have read, he considered the traffic problems here to be
less troublesome than in his home of Germany.

The one time I was doored, the driver of the car was a German
tourist.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b72f09....@news.mindspring.com>,

  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>
> >So I guess you wear your helmet when driving your car, too?
>
> You're kidnapped by aliens, brought up to their ship, and
> told that you have three choices:  One, you will be in a bike
> accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
> same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.  Three,
> they will cut off your silly head and play basketball with it,
> dancing around your lifeless, twitching body.

You are abducted by aliens and they offer you three choices:
1) You can marry this totally hot chick with a body that would bring
the dead to life again, a face that would launch a thousand ships
and a personality that would please the most discriminating male
chauvinist. But after three years she would revert to a hag and
nag you for the rest of your days.
2) You can marry the hag to begin with but after three years you'll
be completely free to do whatever you want.
3) You'll be forced to live in a zoo with your mother the simian and
your father the kumquat until you willing expire of loneliness and
boredom.

Now let me tell you something about the aliens -- they are fate --
fate that you will someday do something wrong or have an accident
that is beyond your ability to predict.

But if you're wearing your helmet, none of the above will faze you.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B6EAA2...@biotek.uio.no>, David Martin
<david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>Garry Lee wrote:
>
>> Listen here Burdett, you ignorant gobshite, you've just called me a liar.
>> What I said about Casartelli was totally the truth and the other stuff was
>> propaganda put out immediately after the accident by the tour people. The
>> usual smokescreen. If you go to the bother to dig you will find out I'm
>> right. But you wouldn't like that, would you?
>
>You were right about the injuries, to the top of the head.
>It was howevere the opinion of the doctors who treated him that a helmet
>would have made virtually no difference in that accident.
>
>He did hit the edge of a concrete block headfirst at a somewhat
>excessive speed, exceeding the rating for a helmet on a flat surface
>with just the weight of the head.
>
>So you were right about the injuries and you were wrong about the effect
>of a helmet.
>
>I apologise for my earlier error.

An error shared by most of us, as it was the virtually unanimous version
that people involved at the scene gave out.  I find it fascinating that it
turned out to be a lie.

Given that, I have to be a bit suspicious about what the doctor who
treated him is said to have said.  Would one of you pass along the
pointers to the real information?

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b84c0d...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:
>
>>You're kidnapped by aliens, brought up to their ship, and
>>told that you have three choices:  One, you will be in a bike
>>accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
>>same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.  Three,
>>they will cut off your silly head and play basketball with it,
>>dancing around your lifeless, twitching body.  [...] What is your
>>choice?   [...]
>
>The correct answer is of course: you take the plane and you go away at
>the first opportunity. :-}
>
>But, pray tell, what does this have to do with bicycling?

Exactly as much as your demanding of everyone why they don't wear a helmet
while walking around.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B747B1...@biotek.uio.no>, David Martin
<david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>Dave Bailey wrote:
>> One, you will be in a bike
>> accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
>> same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.
>
>Hmm.. sounds like an everyday occurrence, right?
>
>Give more details on the bike accident. I'd want to be able to look at
>the mechanics before making that choice. Or if there was no info
>available and all you were doing on the bike was to have this crash then
>I would choose the helmet, not for life protection but for minor
>irritation (road rash etc).
>If I had to ride up a steep hill first I'd go without the helmet.
>
>Your example is as silly as the hit by a 2x4 analagy. Of course the
>hospitals are full of cyclists who were hit by 2x4's whilst riding
>bareheaded.
>
>Hmm.. I'm off home cos its nice and sunny.
>I'll probably still be riding sans helmet 30 years from now.

Well, there's another one who won't answer a simple question....

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B6D3C4...@flash.net>, Jim Quinn <jimq...@flash.net> wrote:

>tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
>> In article <35b8ee2a....@news.gmd.de>,


>>   Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>> >
>> > First. The sharp edge of an opened car door might easily split your
>> > helmet (and your skull) like a hot knife cuts into butter.
>>
>> I can't stress this too much. I was riding in a group carefully through
>> the downtown section of Livermore. This town has narrow streets and the
>> main street is just wide enough for four lanes of traffic and parking
>> each side. Traffic is generally too heavy and we were forced to stay too
>> close to the parked cars.
>>
>> Just as I got up to a car the door flew open. I pulled my hand out of the
>> way just in time but my handlebar struck the edge of the door and I
>> somehow managed to keep the bike up while swerving over the whole lane and
>> almost getting whacked by the car one lane out. I pulled over and looked
>> at the bike and the handlebar tape was neatly severed as if by a razor blade
>> where the door had hit the handlebar. JUST WHERE MY FINGERS HAD BEEN!
>
>Hey Tom you need to talk to Wolfgang Strobl,  As he said in a previous post.
>
>Funny. One of the very first and most important safety lessons my two
>children had to learn when I started to teach them safe street
>bicycling: NEVER RIDE WHERE YOU MIGHT GET DOORED
>
>Obviously you must be one of those always wear a helmet fanatics or you would
>have learned to NEVER RIDE WHERE YOU MIGHT GET DOORED.  Also even if you did

>get doored all anti-helmet people know how to fall so that they never get hurt.

It just goes to show how evil and overpowering that Risk Compensation is,
doesn't it?  Tom rides like a totally moronic Helmet Zealot for just one
reason: he's wearing a helmet.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B65285...@home.com>, Dr. Tom Kunich
<elizab...@home.com> world-famed Nobel Laureate in  the field of
sports physiology, wrote:

>David Martin wrote:
>>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> > Well, it certainly doesn't count as a "study" either. What so you
>> > want to bet that it wasn't funded by Bell Sports through the agency
>> > of the Snell Foundation? This is their standard ploy.
>>
>> Tom, it is a study in a peer reviewed journal. The findings are fine
>> and I accept them fully.
>>
>> Its just that they apply to fit college level atheletes at a windspeed
>> of 20mph.
>
>[much learned criticism of the peer-reviewed journal article, proving
once again what Tom said a day or two ago -- they just print whatever
comes in.]

I think you should write this all up and send it to the journal, Tom.

>Oh yes, in response to David Casseres comments that I shouldn't assume
>that such tests are sponsored by Bell Sports: He was quite right. The
>tests were not sponsored by Bell Sports. They were sponsored by
>Specialized.

So, your guess was approximately right.  But it's still a good idea to get
a fact before you disregard a study because of who you think funded it.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Frank Krygowski 7/23/98 12:00 AM

In a previous article, cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) says:

>In article <35B6EAA2...@biotek.uio.no>, David Martin

Wasn't it the day before yesterday that we had a person who posted that he
saw live video footage of Casartelli immediately after the accident, and
that the impact clearly included the face?  The person was pro-helmet
anyway, so bias was unlikely to have affected his observation.

On the one hand, it seems this incident is as impenetrable as the Kennedy
assassination.  But on the other hand, it seems that even _racing_
bicycles is not particularly dangerous.  So far, the list of fatalities
from over 100 years of cycle racing seems to be tiny indeed.  Nothing
like motor racing or mountaineering, for example.  

It looks to me like this sort of thing is so rare that people should
spend their time worrying about being struck by lightning instead.  
Mandatory lightning rods, anyone?
--

Frank Krygowski ae...@yfn.ysu.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Pete 7/23/98 12:00 AM

--
p...@visi.net
Dave Bailey wrote in message <35b72f09....@news.mindspring.com>...

>Oh, and just to explain the significance of the aliens:  the
>aliens are Fate - Fate, giving you a glimpse of your future,
>and offering you the opportunity to alter its course.  But you
>are only able to do one small thing to affect the course of
>the rest of your life, and you are not given the chance to
>avoid the situation altogether.  The unpredictability and
>hence unavoidability of many accidents is signified by the
>third choice the aliens (Fate) offer you - certain death.


So riding without a helmet each and every time you go out equals certain
death?

Makes one wonder how cycling lasted so long....

Pete

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jim West 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B65285...@home.com>,
Tom Kunich  <elizab...@home.com> wrote:
>
>the power fan colling the rider. Hardly the ideal place to measure the
>temperature don't you think?

What any of us think is not relevant since we are not qualified to judge
the ideal (or even reasonable) place to measure temperature. The
peer-reviewers of the paper were used because they are experts in the
field. Can you show any scientifically valid documentation that this is
not an appropriate measurement point? If not, I will accept the scientific
judgement of the reviewers.

>for helmeted and unhelmeted riders. Of course all that means is that the
>maximum flow for that rider was achieved early -- maximum flow is
>maximum flow.

Are you qualified to make this statement? Do you feel that the reviewers
of the paper would miss something so (apparently) obvious?


>And the authors stated that they couldn't find any difference in the
>heat generated by helmeted or unhelmeted riders. Yet they had both the
>riders perception and the proof of measurements, to wit: The riders
>showed and average of almost 1 degree f. in perceived heat increase with
>the helmets over what they felt without.

Subjective evaluations are very easily distorted by preconceived notions
when the testing is not blind. It was scientifically appropriate to place
limited weight on the perceptions.


Moreover, the heart rate
>measurements CLEARLY showed about 3 beats difference between helmeted
>and unhelmeted riders. That is proof that there was a significant
>performance advantage of not wearing a helmet.

It does not CLEARLY show that there is a 3 beat difference. The
differences between w/wo helmet fall within the error bars. You therefore
cannot claim that a difference has been demonstrated from this data.
(If it did you could claim that after 90 minutes, use of a helmet reduces
heart rate by about 3 b/min in humid weather. Why did you not mention that
data point?) In any event, is 3 b/min significant anyway? I'm sure not
qualified to say. Incidently, I see that dry vs. humid resulted in a
20 b/min mean difference (well beyond the error bars). We can say that
the addition of the humidity is far more important than adding a helmet
based on this data.

>So even under the best possible conditions there was a measureable
>difference in the heat and performance of a rider wearing a helmet and
>the same rider unhelmeted.

Not within the accuracy limitations of the data.

>Oh yes, in response to David Casseres comments that I shouldn't assume
>that such tests are sponsored by Bell Sports: He was quite right. The
>tests were not sponsored by Bell Sports. They were sponsored by
>Specialized.

I was quite amused by that also. But for perhaps a difference reason
than you.

jw
--
Jim West                                  jw...@emag.ecen.okstate.edu
Associate Professor                       jw...@master.ceat.okstate.edu
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/23/98 12:00 AM
tku...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <6p7v08$94a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>  jglad...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> with all due respect, you have clearly not ridden in Boston lately.
>
>John, Wolfgang just got back from a vacation in New England and
>after reading all of our horror stories about American traffic
>around bicycles was prepared for the very worse.
>
>As you have read, he considered the traffic problems here to be
>less troublesome than in his home of Germany.
>
>The one time I was doored, the driver of the car was a German
>tourist.

How can you get "doored"?  When the guy opened the door to his car,
did the door suddenly leap out from the body of his car by 8 feet?  Or
was it that you were riding with your head up your *@3@!*  and went by
his car within door strike distance?

Bob Cardone

>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b77897.131920091@omega>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de wrote:

>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
>(I asked)


>
>>>But, pray tell, what does this have to do with bicycling?
>
>>Exactly as much as your demanding of everyone why they don't wear a helmet
>>while walking around.
>
>Huh? I don't remember having demanded anything. Can you quote anything
>from me where I demanded anybody wearing a helmet while walking around?
>Or is this just a lie, did you make this up?
>
>Dave, you have a double standard. If anybody just tries to find out your
>point of view about the matter by rephrasing your (IMHO intentionally
>obscure) statements, you immediately go up the wall.  But you have no
>scruples of putting words in other peoples mouth as a easy discussion
>tactic.

If I have misquoted you, I humbly apologize.  I know you have demanded of
me why I don't wear a helmet in the car; I thought you had also asked me,
or someone, why they didn't wear a helmet while walking.

And if I have gone up the wall because you rephrased a statement of mine,
I apologize for that, too.  But as for my statements being "intentionally
obscure," you have no right to an opinion about that, just as you have no
right to an opinion about what is convenient for me and what is not.

>Anyway.  While this question about why not wearing a helmet in the car
>or while walking might look like a rhetorical one, it really is not.
>
>My concept of traffic safety is not a religious one, based on hope and
>faith, not a matter of indisputable opinions. a matter of taste (like
>yours), but a rational one, based on knowledge and communicable
>conclusions.  
>
>Confronted with the ubiquitous claim THOU SHALL WEAR YOUR HELMET, my
>first question is, of course, why, for what reason? Well, there are many
>answers to that question (including, of course, the standard religious
>answer THOU SHALL NOT ASK, ASKING IS SIN).
>
>The most sensible one so far is "because bicyling is dangerous, because
>you risk a head injury and death". (We might en passant abandon the risk
>of minor head injuries by pointing out that nobody shouts THOU SHALL
>ALWAYS WEAR NOSE PROTECTION).
>
>This in turn triggers two further questions:
>
>- Bicycling is dangerous? Compared to what? And
>
>- How do you know that helmets "work"?
>
>Well, when trying to evaluate a persons (or a societies) concept of
>"acceptable risk" of an activity, isn't it obvious to look into
>comparable activities?  Now bicycling is an everyday activity done for a
>certain purpose, that is to say, transport.  Are there other forms of
>transport, besides bicycling?
>
>Of course there are. Those most similar to bicycling are driving a car
>and walking. In a way, bicycling lies half way between walking and
>driving, with a large overlap at both ends of the spectrum.
>
>Now comes the interesting fact. Both average pedestrians (without
>helmet) and average motorists (with seatbelt, without helmet) risk fatal
>head injuries at a level comparable (if not higher) than average
>bicyclists do. But neither one usually see this fact as a sufficient
>reason for wearing a helmet. On the contrary, people, including, of
>course, Dave Casseres, in perfect knowlede of this fact, don't even
>consider thinking about it, they completely condemn the whole idea,
>often in a highly emotional tone.
>
>We might conclude two things. First, the head injury risk of an average
>road user is considered low and fully aceptable by the general public.
>Second, wearing a helmet generally is considered somehow indecent.  This
>implies that people wearing helmets believe their own riding style and
>risk to be much worse than average, and that people demanding that other
>people wear helmets consider bicycling as a much more dangerous activity
>than it really is. ("much" dangerous, because it even makes them to
>accept a headgear they obviously hate under circumstances which are,
>when evaluating it without bias, are less uncomfortable than on the
>bike).
>
>Commenting "so you wear a helmet in your car, too?" when confronted with
>people demanding helmets for bicyclists, is nothing else than condensing
>the above, a bit longwinded argument into a simple and short question.

In other words, Wolfgang, it is precisely what you said it is not: a
rhetorical question.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b886f8.135601634@omega>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de wrote:

>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
>>In article <35B747B1...@biotek.uio.no>, David Martin


>><david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Bailey wrote:
>>>> One, you will be in a bike
>>>> accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
>>>> same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.
>>>
>>>Hmm.. sounds like an everyday occurrence, right?
>>>
>>>Give more details on the bike accident. I'd want to be able to look at
>>>the mechanics before making that choice.
>
>[...]

>
>>Well, there's another one who won't answer a simple question....
>
>Dave, assume two possibilites. One, you will be in a car accident, crash

>and hit your head. Two, you will be in the same exact accident, only
>you'll be wearing a helmet.  
>
>What do you choose?

Wearing a helmet.  See, I answered the simple question with a simple
answer.  It was easy.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/23/98 12:00 AM
dph...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
/www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>>
>
>Well, I haven't ridden in Holland but my most recent ride in Boston
>was on Tuesday.  No helmet *and* I lived to tell about it.  I find
>Boston drivers predictable and reasonably skilled.
>
>--
>    --dph.
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum


You have got to be:

1.  A Troll trying to start an arguement
2. Brain damaged, already from a previous non-helmeted accident
3. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
4.  All of the above

to state that Boston drivers are predictable and reasonably skilled.  

Sorry, but couldn't let that big fib go unchallenged.


Bob Cardone

( have road my bike in Boston)

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tom Kunich 7/23/98 12:00 AM
David Casseres wrote:
>
>
> I think you should write this all up and send it to the journal, Tom.

Why?

> So, your guess was approximately right.  But it's still a good idea to
> get a fact before you disregard a study because of who you think
> funded it.

"Approximately" correct huh David?

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jim Quinn 7/23/98 12:00 AM
You know Wolfgang if this were a serious thread I would be humbled, I probably
couldn't live with myself and would have to end it all.  But somewhere around the
1,000th posting you see "debating" the helmet pro's and con's it all begins to
seem fairly silly.  I put quotations around debating because all we really see is
the same people making the same points time after time.   Its more like a
monologue than a debate.

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> Jim Quinn <jimq...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >Hey Tom you need to talk to Wolfgang Strobl,  As he said in a previous post.
>
> Well, Jim, there are people who are able to learn from experience, from
> observing and from sharing and deducing from it. And there are people
> who are not.
>
> I made a a few general statement about a certain aspect of cycling
> safety, and Tom backed it up by giving a specific example which somehow
> supports two of the points I was going to make.
>
> Now what is your contribution to the topic, other than telling us that
> you don't know and don't care?

>
> --
> Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti Peter Cowell 7/23/98 12:00 AM
Oh no, not again!!!

Please tell me how I can filter my r.b.r news to exclude this stupid,
eternal, never-the-twain-shall-meet, thread about the merits (or otherwise)
of wearing helmets. I don't care if YOU wear a helmet or if YOU don't, it is
YOUR decision.

May I suggest that ALL contributors to this thread (me included) would be
better off spending their time on the bike rather than on the keyboard
contributing to this never-to-resolved farcical argument that rages between
the Fors and the Againsts.

Keep your perspective!

Regards,
Pete (who is about to go for a ride)

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:
>
>>Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>>
>>>So I guess you wear your helmet when driving your car, too?
>>
>>You and Tom are so bogus and hypocritical it makes me
>
>You were the one claiming that "wearing a helmet is such a minor
>burden". So
>
>You display a classical example of applying a double standard. You try
>to press us into wearing a bizarre safety gadget during an relatively
>safe everyday activity, you call me names when I ask you in turn,
>whether you do so in a comparable, slightly more dangerous activity or
>not.
>
>You are the hypocrite, sir.

My goodness me, Wolfgang, I go off to work for a day and
look what a mess you've made!  First, you should check your
facts.  I never said that "wearing a helmet is such a minor burden."
Someone else said that.  Not only that, but I've never insisted that
you or anybody else should wear a helmet.  I challenge you to find
a quote from any of my posts where I say such a thing.  In fact,
you'll find that I often went to great lengths to state that I was
*not* making an argument for why everybody should wear helmets.
Because this has been such a point of confusion for you, I'm going
to have to ask that you acknowledge explicity that this is my position
before we continue this discussion.  Oh, and by the way, this
eliminates your claim that I am applying a double standard, am
a hypocrite, etc.  I can only guess that you've deliberately
misunderstood me, repeatedly, because you are unable to
come up with a logical response to my arguments.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
[long argument snipped]

>Commenting "so you wear a helmet in your car, too?" when confronted with
>people demanding helmets for bicyclists, is nothing else than condensing
>the above, a bit longwinded argument into a simple and short question.

Then you admit that you've been wrong to visit this ubiquitous
response of yours upon me, since I have never demanded that
you wear a helmet.  Correct?


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dorre 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: You're kidnapped by aliens, brought up to their ship, and
: told that you have three choices:  One, you will be in a bike

: accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
: same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.  Three,

: they will cut off your silly head and play basketball with it,
: dancing around your lifeless, twitching body.  If you ask for
: details about the crash (how fast, how hard, where on my
: head, etc.), they stare at you for about three seconds, utterly
: silent, then slowly start laughing, looking at each other
: knowingly and casting glances over to the nearby basketball
: court.  Time's up, you have to make a choice.  What is your
: choice?  Helmet, no helmet, or your head as a basketball for
: the perverse amusement of these twisted creatures?

     First tell us what YOU would do in exactly the same scenario,
except that you were driving a car when you crashed and hit your
head despite wearing a seatbelt.  Crash tests using seatbelted dummies
in brand new cars have shown that, for impact speeds of 35 mph in
frontal collisions, brain damage is more likely than not.  If
you were T-boned, you could be head injured at even lower impact speed.
    So imagine this situation.  You will be in a car accident
where some idiot will run into you from the side, you'll hit your head
on the door post and end up in a sorry mess.  What is your choice,
helmet or no helmet?
    Dorre

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> >An error shared by most of us, as it was the virtually unanimous version
> >that people involved at the scene gave out.  I find it fascinating that it
> >turned out to be a lie.
> >
> >Given that, I have to be a bit suspicious about what the doctor who
> >treated him is said to have said.  Would one of you pass along the
> >pointers to the real information?
>
> Wasn't it the day before yesterday that we had a person who posted that he
> saw live video footage of Casartelli immediately after the accident, and
> that the impact clearly included the face?  The person was pro-helmet
> anyway, so bias was unlikely to have affected his observation.

The info I got was from an interview in The Times with the hospital
doctor who treated him.
I paraphrase slightly ' a depressed fracture to the top of the head'.
Basically he hit the block so hard that he bled profusely from all
orifices, leaving his face covered with blood (from ears, eyes, nose,
mouth etc.)
The doctors also reckoned that a helmet would have made absolutely no
difference to the outcome.

As the hedgehog said when they increased the weight limit on semi trucks
from 38 to 40 tons in UK 'an extra two tons ain't gonna make a fat lot
of difference'

..d

[A hedgehog is a small porcupine like creature that rolls into a ball at
the first sign of danger and is then squished into a pancake by the
vehicles. Much joviality and folklore in UK about these creatures]

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti Wolfgang Strobl 7/24/98 12:00 AM
"Peter Cowell" <p.co...@interact.net.au> wrote:

>Oh no, not again!!!
>
>Please tell me how I can filter my r.b.r news to exclude this stupid,
>eternal, never-the-twain-shall-meet, thread about the merits (or otherwise)
>of wearing helmets. I don't care if YOU wear a helmet or if YOU don't, it is
>YOUR decision.

Look at your Outlook Express newsreader. Can you find the menu bar on
top? Try it.

Did you find it? Wow, thats great! Now type Alt-TW, or, if you prefer,
click at Tools, then Newsgroups Filters. Now press the ADD button, and
type "Casarteli" into the subject line, then press Ok. Wasn't this
easy?

Me, I prefer Agent, but it took me no more than 15 seconds to figure
this out.

>
>May I suggest that ALL contributors to this thread (me included) would be
>better off spending their time on the bike rather than on the keyboard

May I suggest that people contributing nothing to this threat than
irrelevant off-topic questions would be better of reading their
documentation?


>contributing to this never-to-resolved farcical argument that rages between
>the Fors and the Againsts.
>
>Keep your perspective!
>
>Regards,
>Pete (who is about to go for a ride)

Wolfgang (who still has to work, before he will ride home).

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. dph...@my-dejanews.com 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <casseres-230...@cassda.apple.com>,

  cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
> In article <35B747B1...@biotek.uio.no>, David Martin
> <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
> >Dave Bailey wrote:
> >> One, you will be in a bike
> >> accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
> >> same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.
> >
> >Hmm.. sounds like an everyday occurrence, right?
> >
> >Give more details on the bike accident. I'd want to be able to look at
> >the mechanics before making that choice. Or if there was no info
> >available and all you were doing on the bike was to have this crash then
> >I would choose the helmet, not for life protection but for minor
> >irritation (road rash etc).
> >If I had to ride up a steep hill first I'd go without the helmet.
> >
> >Your example is as silly as the hit by a 2x4 analagy. Of course the
> >hospitals are full of cyclists who were hit by 2x4's whilst riding
> >bareheaded.
> >
> >Hmm.. I'm off home cos its nice and sunny.
> >I'll probably still be riding sans helmet 30 years from now.
>
> Well, there's another one who won't answer a simple question....
>

sounds more like another person that doesn't want to shake hands
with a strawman.  change the offer to a gun shot with or without
a bullet-proof vest and then explain why you don't wear kevlar
every day.

all the alien-induced bike crashes that i have been involved with
have resulted in a face-to-fire-hydrant impact; the bike helmet
hasn't saved me yet.  but those pesky aliens keep trying.

next time you speak with your alien friends, pass along this request
for me: "More vaseline on the anal probe, please."

--
    --dph.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:

>Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: You're kidnapped by aliens, brought up to their ship, and
>: told that you have three choices:  One, you will be in a bike

>: accident, crash, and hit your head.  Two, you will be in the
>: same exact accident, only you'll be wearing a helmet.  Three,
>: they will cut off your silly head and play basketball with it,
>: dancing around your lifeless, twitching body.  If you ask for
>: details about the crash (how fast, how hard, where on my
>: head, etc.), they stare at you for about three seconds, utterly
>: silent, then slowly start laughing, looking at each other
>: knowingly and casting glances over to the nearby basketball
>: court.  Time's up, you have to make a choice.  What is your
>: choice?  Helmet, no helmet, or your head as a basketball for
>: the perverse amusement of these twisted creatures?
>
>     First tell us what YOU would do in exactly the same scenario,
>except that you were driving a car when you crashed and hit your
>head despite wearing a seatbelt.  Crash tests using seatbelted dummies
>in brand new cars have shown that, for impact speeds of 35 mph in
>frontal collisions, brain damage is more likely than not.  If
>you were T-boned, you could be head injured at even lower impact speed.
>    So imagine this situation.  You will be in a car accident
>where some idiot will run into you from the side, you'll hit your head
>on the door post and end up in a sorry mess.  What is your choice,
>helmet or no helmet?
>    Dorre

Helmet, silly.  Nothing could be simpler.  Now why don't you answer
my question?  I find it immensely amusing how you, Wolfgang Strobl,
and Tom Kunich have all failed to answer my simple question.  You
couldn't bring yourselves to admit that you'd rather be wearing a
helmet than not, so you all had to dodge the question somehow or
another.  What this shows is that you can't admit that wearing a
helmet might lessen your chances of injury in an accident, even
though deep down inside you know it to be true.  If people want to
wear a helmet, let them do it and leave them alone.  


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. dph...@my-dejanews.com 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b7a0a3...@news.mindspring.com>,
  cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:

> dph...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> /www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> >>
> >
> >Well, I haven't ridden in Holland but my most recent ride in Boston
> >was on Tuesday.  No helmet *and* I lived to tell about it.  I find
> >Boston drivers predictable and reasonably skilled.
> >
> >--
> >    --dph.
> >
> >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
> You have got to be:
>
> 1.  A Troll trying to start an arguement
> 2. Brain damaged, already from a previous non-helmeted accident
> 3. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
> 4.  All of the above
>
> to state that Boston drivers are predictable and reasonably skilled.
>
> Sorry, but couldn't let that big fib go unchallenged.
>
> Bob Cardone
>
> ( have road my bike in Boston)
>

5) none of the above.

> 3. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
> ( have road my bike in Boston)

hmm.  Perhaps you should worry about your own acuity.

--
    --dph.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:

> Helmet, silly.  Nothing could be simpler.  Now why don't you answer
> my question?  I find it immensely amusing how you, Wolfgang Strobl,
> and Tom Kunich have all failed to answer my simple question.  You
> couldn't bring yourselves to admit that you'd rather be wearing a
> helmet than not, so you all had to dodge the question somehow or
> another.  What this shows is that you can't admit that wearing a
> helmet might lessen your chances of injury in an accident, even
> though deep down inside you know it to be true.  If people want to
> wear a helmet, let them do it and leave them alone.

We are not the ones preaching at people. It is the 'wear your helmet',
'If you don't wear a helmet you've got nothing to protect', 'you'll be
fined for not wearing ahelmet' crowd who aren't leaving people alone.

When did you last hear someone say 'take that helmet off'?
or threaten to fine someone if they rode with a helmet?

AN example of that and I will not complain about you telling the
pro-choice crew to 'let others alone'. We are. they aren't.

BTW: Yes helmets do reduce minor injuries in an accident.
The population data suggests that they have little or no effect on
serious injuries.
They cause me a lot of hassle in the areas I ride.

So I don't wear one. My chances of needing one are very, very low.
If I was racing I would wear one for two reasons. Firstly the chance of
accruing minor injuries that a helmet could help with are significant,
and secondly it is required in order to race.

Commuting? No chance.

Off road? I don't ride aggressively off road so I don't bother. I am
always well in control of where my head is going.

Do you wear MTB body protection to ride down to the shops?
WHy not? It could prevent some nasty injuries that could turn septic and
kill you.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Ewoud Dronkert 7/24/98 12:00 AM
>If people want to
>wear a helmet, let them do it and leave them alone.
>Dave Bailey

?? Shouldn't you have used the negative here (..people don't want..)? I
thought it was mandatory for all cyclists in America to wear helmets (when
riding ;)
I think a law like that is plain stupid (especially when you are on a outing
all alone) but IMHO it *is* wise to wear a helmet when riding in a group.
--
Ewoud [remove .nospam to reply]
       ___O~
  - __/\ <__
-  / /\/ /\ \
   \__/- \__/


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/24/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>Helmet, silly.  Nothing could be simpler.  Now why don't you answer
>my question?  I find it immensely amusing how you, Wolfgang Strobl,
>and Tom Kunich have all failed to answer my simple question.  You
>couldn't bring yourselves to admit that you'd rather be wearing a
>helmet than not, so you all had to dodge the question somehow or
>another.  What this shows is that you can't admit that wearing a
>helmet might lessen your chances of injury in an accident, even
>though deep down inside you know it to be true.  If people want to

>wear a helmet, let them do it and leave them alone.  
>
>
>--
>Dave Bailey
>dbail...@mindspring.com

Wolfgang and Tom might prefer if they could talk someone into not
wearing a  helmet and that person happens by some freak occurence to
survive a head crash, that they will be able to add  to their "
survived without a helmet stats"

Of course if their experiment fails, it's no sweat off their brow.


Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/24/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>Helmet, silly.  Nothing could be simpler.  Now why don't you answer
>my question?  

I answered your question, silly. You just didn't get the answer you
expected.

>I find it immensely amusing how you, Wolfgang Strobl,
>and Tom Kunich have all failed to answer my simple question.  

It isn't a simple question.  Just to the contrary, it is somewhere on a
line between complicated and stupid. And it isn't as nicely constructed
as the following one:

Dave, have you stopped beating your wife?


>You
>couldn't bring yourselves to admit that you'd rather be wearing a
>helmet than not, so you all had to dodge the question somehow or
>another.  

Sure. What are answers to irrelevant questions about irreal good for?
These prove nothing.

Dave, assume that 2+2=5. Would you prefer 7+4 to be 11, then, or would
you prefer it to be 13?


>What this shows is that you can't admit that wearing a
>helmet might lessen your chances of injury in an accident,

It doesn't show anything like that. Such a claim is factual, its truth
can't be decided by exploring your fantasies.   Being a statement of
existence, it can be (and has) simply proven by giving a single
example.  But so what? It doesn't say anything about whether helmets
work in general or not, and about whether they are cost-effective,
compared to competing safety measures.

If such cheap, kindergarden like rhetoric is all you have to present
for bicycle helmets, your case is rather weak.


>even
>though deep down inside you know it to be true.  If people want to
>wear a helmet, let them do it and leave them alone.  

Did anybody prevent you from wearing a helmet? Did anybody install or
demand a legal ban of bicycle helmets?

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Bob Cardone wrote:

> Wolfgang and Tom might prefer if they could talk someone into not
> wearing a  helmet and that person happens by some freak occurence to
> survive a head crash, that they will be able to add  to their "
> survived without a helmet stats"

Lets just test your maths here Bob.
Take all the cyclists in the US and stand them side by side. They'd form
a line from Boston to New York.
Now we take all those whose lives would have been saved had they been
wearing a helmet. They might just make up about half a block.
Your chances of dying without a helmet are very low. So low as to be not
really worth bothering about if you have taken all the other reasonable
safety precautions (like learning how to ride in traffic, being in
control of your bike and keeping it in mechanically good condition).

But some people prefer paranoia and recycled beer coolers.
They can do as they wish.
They're better off riding than not riding, whether or not they are
wearing helmets.
You are better off with them riding than not riding, whether or not they
are wearing helmets.

MHL's are stupid, stupid, stupid because they are based on the wrong
premise and sold on something completely different.

They are sold on the premise that cycling with a helmet is safer than
without. Now, that may well be true. It doesn't matter.

What they are based on is a great myth that cycling without a helmet is
worse than not cycling, which is completely false.

Maybe we can try to turn our campaign around a bit.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/24/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>

snip

>So I don't wear one. My chances of needing one are very, very low.
>If I was racing I would wear one for two reasons. Firstly the chance of
>accruing minor injuries that a helmet could help with are significant,
>and secondly it is required in order to race.
>
>Commuting? No chance.
>
>Off road? I don't ride aggressively off road so I don't bother. I am
>always well in control of where my head is going.
>
>Do you wear MTB body protection to ride down to the shops?
>WHy not? It could prevent some nasty injuries that could turn septic and
>kill you.
>
>..d


So what we have here is a person that can predict when he is going to
have an ACCIDENT.   Whoops, that must be the wrong word.  An accident
means  ( dictionary definition  from Websters)


.....something by chance, a chance event bringing injury.

The opposite of that is planned ..

So when David rides his bike off road or commuting , he can plan that
he is not going to have an accident and therefore plans that he
doesn't need  to wear a helmet ..  

I think that David's logic is really a revelation to the rest of us.
We should Plan not to be in bike, car, or airplane acccidents and then
they will not happen. You can remove the airbags and seatbelts and car
childrens car seats for your car and just plan not to have an
accident.  In fact we should call them , deliberates instead of
accidents.  If you plan to have a deliberate, then wear your helmet!.

Amazing Logic!!

Bob Cardone

BTW

( For Sale:  Tshirts for helmetless bicycle riders)

Caption on T-Shirt

I am really not as stupid as I look.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti jimq...@my-dejanews.com 7/24/98 12:00 AM
So how do you do that when you use netscape rather than Outlook.  Please reply
by e-mail so that I will get the message.  I don't read most of the helmet
posts.


In article <35b864b3...@news.gmd.de>,

> --
> Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----


http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/24/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>Bob Cardone wrote:
>
>> Wolfgang and Tom might prefer if they could talk someone into not
>> wearing a  helmet and that person happens by some freak occurence to
>> survive a head crash, that they will be able to add  to their "
>> survived without a helmet stats"
>
>Lets just test your maths here Bob.
>Take all the cyclists in the US and stand them side by side. They'd form
>a line from Boston to New York.
>Now we take all those whose lives would have been saved had they been
>wearing a helmet. They might just make up about half a block.


That's speculation on your part and that speculation plus $1.50 will
get you on the subway in New York.  It's conjecture and totally
irrelevant.  Where do you get your info that the lives saved would be
just a short line?  Bull crap. You anti helmet guys just make up
stuff, post it on here, read your own stuff and start to believe it.
<G>

>Your chances of dying without a helmet are very low. So low as to be not
>really worth bothering about if you have taken all the other reasonable
>safety precautions (like learning how to ride in traffic, being in
>control of your bike and keeping it in mechanically good condition).
>

More verbal diarrhea on your part. No foundation or basis in fact for
your spouting. Totally without any merit whatsoever.

Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Bob Cardone wrote:
> >
> >Commuting? No chance.

> So what we have here is a person that can predict when he is going to
> have an ACCIDENT.   Whoops, that must be the wrong word.  An accident
> means  ( dictionary definition  from Websters)

No Bob. We have here someone who can predict the chance of a chance
event occuring. This has been done since Pascals time.

And in UK, DETR are moving towards the term Crash instead of Accident as
most of them are easily avoidable.

If you can't predict when you are likely to have an accident I hope you
have good medical insurance.

>
> So when David rides his bike off road or commuting , he can plan that
> he is not going to have an accident and therefore plans that he
> doesn't need  to wear a helmet ..

I can reasonably plan that I am most unlikely to have an accident
involving me banging my head and therefore do not need to bother with
the helmet as the hassle more than outweighs th elack of benefit.


> I think that David's logic is really a revelation to the rest of us.
> We should Plan not to be in bike, car, or airplane acccidents and then
> they will not happen.

We actually plan to minimise the chance of accidents happening. You may
not. In which case I suggest you don't ever stray very far from a major
trauma centre (though of course it could burn down by accident)

Have you ever wondered why people have failsafe devices, maintenance
checks etc. After all if we cant predict accidents how can we prevent
them.

Every so often I think I have discovered a new example of what it means
to be mathematically illiterate. Then someone else comes along and
stretches it just that bit further.


> ( For Sale:  Tshirts for helmeted bicycle riders)
>
> Caption on T-Shirt
>
> I am really as stupid as I look.


..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Bob Cardone wrote:
 
> That's speculation on your part and that speculation plus $1.50 will
> get you on the subway in New York.  It's conjecture and totally
> irrelevant.  Where do you get your info that the lives saved would be
> just a short line?  Bull crap. You anti helmet guys just make up
> stuff, post it on here, read your own stuff and start to believe it.
> <G>

That paragraph was  a joke, right? Thats what the <G> means.

Approximately 10% of the US population ride a bike at least once a year.
That is about 50 million people.

Every year about 750 die, of which about half are uniquely due to head
injury.

These are government stats.

Now, if all those 750 were unhelmeted (they aren't but we'll give you
the benefit of the doubt) an dhelmets can prevent 50% of those head
injury deaths, you'll end up with about 200 people. Thats not very many
along a street. About 100 metres. Last time I was in manhattan (July
1993, 40C, no idea what the humidity was but the TV announcer kept on
prattling about it being well outside the 'comfort zone' and Newark had
a record high temperature on the runway) the blocks were bigger than
that.

>
> >Your chances of dying without a helmet are very low. So low as to be not
> >really worth bothering about if you have taken all the other reasonable
> >safety precautions (like learning how to ride in traffic, being in
> >control of your bike and keeping it in mechanically good condition).
> >
>
> More verbal diarrhea on your part. No foundation or basis in fact for
> your spouting. Totally without any merit whatsoever.

Your chance of dying in a bike accident in the USA per at least once a
year cyclist per lifetime is about 1 in 1,000.
per cyclist per hour is about the same as a motorist at 0.24 per million
hours.

In those 4 million hours you would have ridden at an average 10 miles an
hour the equivalent of many thousand times coast to coast across the US.
At the same time your chance of dying of cancer or heart disease are
better than evens (from government stats).
Guess which one I'm worried about.
(Hint: it isn't a bicycle accident)

Do I get an apology now I have shown you the sources for these figures?
Or are you so emotionally locked into the helmet cult that you cannot
fathom anyone daring to challenge religious dogma.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Chris 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <6p85c3$gdj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dph...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

I find Boston drivers predictable and reasonably skilled.
 --dph.

This is the most astonishing statement I've read on this news group.
Unless of course you don't mean Boston, Massachusetts?

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/24/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:


So the only benefit of a Helmet as far as you are concerned is
preventing death. If one prevents a brain injury, or skull fracture or
concussion or head laceration, that doesn't count. Where are your
statistics for these non-events.  I have personnally dinged 2 helmets.
It doesn't show in any accident or fatality stats, but in the one
instance ( inline skating) I would have probably sustained at least a
concussion, if not a skull fracture.  All it cost me was a $39.95
helmet.

Minimizing any risk is the name of the game.

Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/24/98 12:00 AM
x-C.Breen@cellbio.duke.edu-x (Chris) wrote:


The person that posted that must be doing some great drugs to come up
with that conclusion.  "Boston Drivers predictable and reasonably
skilled."  I showed his statement  to a co-worker of mine this
morning. He moved here from Boston last year.  He still laughing.

Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. dph...@my-dejanews.com 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b88891....@news.mindspring.com>,
  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:

<big snip>

> though deep down inside you know it to be true.  If people want to
> wear a helmet, let them do it and leave them alone.
>
> --

Dave, has anyone told you not to wear a helmet ?  (I may have missed
it)  No one (to my knowledge) has proposed a mandatory no-helmet law.
Have you ever had a non-helmeted rider yell at you to take your
helmet off ?  Have you ever tried to participate in a group ride but
been told that for insurance reasons you won't be allowed to ride
with a helmet ?

I have no problem letting other riders wear a helmet and leaving them
alone.  I only ask that the same courtesy be extended to me and my
bandanna-ensconced head.

--
    --dph.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b88891....@news.mindspring.com>,
  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> I find it immensely amusing how you, Wolfgang Strobl,
> and Tom Kunich have all failed to answer my simple question.  You

> couldn't bring yourselves to admit that you'd rather be wearing a
> helmet than not, so you all had to dodge the question somehow or
> another.

And I find it immensely amusing that you cannot find any other reason
for wearing a helmet than making up alien abduction scenarios. Pretty
sick mind to my way of thinking. Give us another laugh:

If you were going to be climbing a cliff face and you knew absolutely
that you were going to fall, would you rather be wearing a safety
harness and safety line or not?

If you prefer the safety harness why don't you wear one on your bike?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B88E80...@biotek.uio.no>, David Martin
<david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>BTW: Yes helmets do reduce minor injuries in an accident.
>The population data suggests that they have little or no effect on
>serious injuries.

Thanks for a rare example of a completely accurate statement about the
statistical studies: they do indeed *suggest* that helmets have little or
no effect on serious injuries, just as physics suggests that they might
well have such an effect.  Because of the uncertainties inherent in
population studies, and the lack of physical measurements in actual
crashes, the population data does not prove that there's no effect, and
the physics doesn't prove that there is one.

>So I don't wear one. My chances of needing one are very, very low.
>If I was racing I would wear one for two reasons. Firstly the chance of
>accruing minor injuries that a helmet could help with are significant,
>and secondly it is required in order to race.
>
>Commuting? No chance.
>
>Off road? I don't ride aggressively off road so I don't bother. I am
>always well in control of where my head is going.

Perfectly reasonable choices, and no one who debates with you on these
newsgroups is telling you otherwise, as far as I'm aware.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b9034e.2103755@omega>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de wrote:

>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
>>In other words, Wolfgang, it is precisely what you said it is not: a
>>rhetorical question.
>
>Ok, Dave, you are right here, I should have said "It's not just a
>rhetorical question only, when I ask 'so you do wear a helmet while
>driving your car?' What I'm hunting for is of course the explaination to
>be expected  'No, I don't do that because ...".  
>
>Sorry about the confusion.
>
>But what is your point?
>
>Your contention was that I demanded from you that you (or somebody else)
>wears a helmet while walking or driving.

No, Wolfgang, I said that you demanded that I tell you *why* I don't wear
a helmet while walking (or driving).

You can go back to sleep now.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/24/98 12:00 AM

Bob Cardone (cardone!@mindspring.com) managed to write:

......
 
> I am really not as stupid as I look.
>

An amazing admission.
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/24/98 12:00 AM

Bob Cardone (cardone!@mindspring.com) writes:
>
..........

 
> So the only benefit of a Helmet as far as you are concerned is
> preventing death. If one prevents a brain injury, or skull fracture or
> concussion or head laceration, that doesn't count. Where are your
> statistics for these non-events.  I have personnally dinged 2 helmets.
> It doesn't show in any accident or fatality stats, but in the one
> instance ( inline skating) I would have probably sustained at least a
> concussion, if not a skull fracture.  All it cost me was a $39.95
> helmet.
>
> Minimizing any risk is the name of the game.
>

Since you own a helmet which, if it works like you say it does,
reduces the risk of head injury, and since minimizing any risk is the name of
your game, please list the activities for which you don't wear a helmet.

Just want to know whether this is all rhetoric.


 
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Bailey 7/24/98 12:00 AM
tku...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
]
] In article <35b88891....@news.mindspring.com>,

]   dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
] >
] > I find it immensely amusing how you, Wolfgang Strobl,
] > and Tom Kunich have all failed to answer my simple question.  You
] > couldn't bring yourselves to admit that you'd rather be wearing a
] > helmet than not, so you all had to dodge the question somehow or
] > another.
]
] And I find it immensely amusing that...
[blah, blah, blah]

But Tom, you still haven't answered the question!  
Why not just answer it, admit that you'd rather
be wearing a helmet, and lay off of those who choose
to wear a helmet while riding a bike?  What is wrong
with you?  Seriously, what the hell is your problem?
And what was up with that "your mother the simian and
your father the kumquat" post?  Come on, I want to hear
your explanation.  

--
Dave Bailey
dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jim West 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b8a849...@news.mindspring.com>,

Bob Cardone <cardone!@!mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>The person that posted that must be doing some great drugs to come up
>with that conclusion.  "Boston Drivers predictable and reasonably
>skilled."  I showed his statement  to a co-worker of mine this
>morning. He moved here from Boston last year.  He still laughing.

Only in Boston have I been honked at (several second blast) for yielding
to a pedestrian who was in a crosswalk at an itersection that had a
stop sign *and* a flashing red light.

jw
--
Jim West                                  jw...@emag.ecen.okstate.edu
Associate Professor                       jw...@master.ceat.okstate.edu
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. dph...@my-dejanews.com 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b8a719...@news.mindspring.com>,
  cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:

> So the only benefit of a Helmet as far as you are concerned is
> preventing death. If one prevents a brain injury, or skull fracture or
> concussion or head laceration, that doesn't count. Where are your
> statistics for these non-events.  I have personnally dinged 2 helmets.
> It doesn't show in any accident or fatality stats, but in the one
> instance ( inline skating) I would have probably sustained at least a
> concussion, if not a skull fracture.  All it cost me was a $39.95
> helmet.
>
> Minimizing any risk is the name of the game.
>
> Bob Cardone
>

Have you sustained any other preventable injuries in your life ?
What steps have you taken since then to avoid injury ?  Do you
wear a suit of armor when you inline skate ?  Such a step would
seem to minimize the risk of road rash.

'Minimizing any risk' is NOT the name of the game for me; enjoyment,
exercise and transportation are the reasons that i ride.

--
    --dph.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b8913d...@news.mindspring.com>,

  cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:
>
> So when David rides his bike off road or commuting , he can plan that
> he is not going to have an accident and therefore plans that he
> doesn't need  to wear a helmet ..
>
> I think that David's logic is really a revelation to the rest of us.
> We should Plan not to be in bike, car, or airplane acccidents and then
> they will not happen. You can remove the airbags and seatbelts and car
> childrens car seats for your car and just plan not to have an
> accident.

Or you can just look at the statistics and see that some 50 million
Americans ride bicycles. Of that 50 million, 750 or so die each year
from an accident. Another 2,500 or so are seriously injured.

That makes your chances for a serious or fatal injury as 3,250 in
50,000,000 or simple statistics of .0065% per year. Because the
base number of bicyclists is so high the difference in mileage between
the least and the most mileage members of that group don't make a heck
of a lot of difference in your chances.

But we do know that something in the neighborhood of 90% of all of
those fatalities and serious accidents are attributable to the bicyclist
doing something REALLY stupid at just the wrong time. Competent cyclists
can probably multiply their chances of avoiding accidents in their
lifetime by several orders of magnitude simply by riding in a logical
and legal manner following the written rules of the road and politely
riding in a defensive posture.

So, before the statistical probability of my having a serious accident
grows to any significant number, I'll have been dead from natural
causes for so long that not one of my family will even remember that I
ever existed.

> I am really not as stupid as I look.

Correct, Bob, you are much more stupid. To you, the fear of having
an accident is so high that you cannot stand the thought of riding
without a helmet. Yet you drive without a helmet. You walk without a
helmet. You take showers and climb stairs without a helmet. And all
of these activities are much more dangerous than cycling. Not dangerous
enough to wear a helmet for, but relatively more dangerous nonetheless.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b8a719...@news.mindspring.com>,
  cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Minimizing any risk is the name of the game.

Why do you say that when you don't believe it Bob? Do you always
wear a bullet proof vest in the USA? You're chances of being shot
are significantly higher here than in any other place in the
world. Do you protect your head while driving, walking or
showering? Do you have every possible innoculation?

Face it Bob, you're full of loud BS.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Joseph Jankovsky 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> If such cheap, kindergarden like rhetoric is all you have to present
> for bicycle helmets, your case is rather weak.


At least Dave's got a sense of humor.  You're boring as hell.  Here's to
the aliens hopefully picking your ass off this planet and working on
their fade away jumper.

Joe Jankovsky

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Andrew Albright 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B8E23A...@yale.edu>, joseph.j...@yale.edu wrote:

> At least Dave's got a sense of humor.  You're boring as hell.  Here's to
> the aliens hopefully picking your ass off this planet and working on
> their fade away jumper.

Wasn't there a movie made about this?

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Andrew Albright 7/24/98 12:00 AM
In article <35B8CDBF...@juliet.ll.mit.edu>, David Bailey
<dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu> wrote:

> But Tom, you still haven't answered the question!  
> Why not just answer it, admit that you'd rather
> be wearing a helmet, and lay off of those who choose
> to wear a helmet while riding a bike?  What is wrong
> with you?  Seriously, what the hell is your problem?
> And what was up with that "your mother the simian and
> your father the kumquat" post?  Come on, I want to hear
> your explanation.  

I am not sure where the whole alien thing fits in, but I have a confession:

I would rather not wear a helmet, but I almost always do*. (except when I
bike to my car from lab)
I am not sure if I wear one because I am afraid people will think I am
stupid if I don't wear one, or if I really think that it is a good idea,
or if I was just programmed by mother to do these things.

So where do I fit into this whole discussion?

Andrew Albright

*while riding a bike, I would never wear one in the shower, because then I
couldn't wash my hair.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/24/98 12:00 AM
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:

>
>Bob Cardone (cardone!@mindspring.com) managed to write:
>
>......
>
>> I am really not as stupid as I look.
>>
>
>An amazing admission.

>--
>Avery Burdett
>Ottawa, Ontario

Avery,

One of your anti Helmet Zombies edited what i wrote and left a few
words out so that it would get the spin he wanted.  The quote is on a
T-shirt designed for helmetless riders .... it says


" I am really not as stupid as I look.  Remember , it's a T-shirt only
for Helmetless riders to try and  improve their self image


Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/24/98 12:00 AM
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:

>
>Bob Cardone (cardone!@mindspring.com) writes:
>>
>..........


>
>> So the only benefit of a Helmet as far as you are concerned is
>> preventing death. If one prevents a brain injury, or skull fracture or
>> concussion or head laceration, that doesn't count. Where are your
>> statistics for these non-events.  I have personnally dinged 2 helmets.
>> It doesn't show in any accident or fatality stats, but in the one
>> instance ( inline skating) I would have probably sustained at least a
>> concussion, if not a skull fracture.  All it cost me was a $39.95
>> helmet.
>>
>> Minimizing any risk is the name of the game.
>>
>
>Since you own a helmet which, if it works like you say it does,
>reduces the risk of head injury, and since minimizing any risk is the name of
>your game, please list the activities for which you don't wear a helmet.
>
>Just want to know whether this is all rhetoric.
>
>
>
>--
>Avery Burdett
>Ottawa, Ontario

I don't wear a helmet when I have sex.


Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Frank Krygowski 7/24/98 12:00 AM

In a previous article, alb...@mail.med.upenn.nospam.edu (Andrew Albright) says:

>I am not sure where the whole alien thing fits in, but I have a confession:
>
>I would rather not wear a helmet, but I almost always do*. (except when I
>bike to my car from lab)
>I am not sure if I wear one because I am afraid people will think I am
>stupid if I don't wear one, or if I really think that it is a good idea,
>or if I was just programmed by mother to do these things.
>
>So where do I fit into this whole discussion?

It puts you right in with most of the bicycle enthusiasts in America.
They've been convinced by advertising and safety promotion that wearing
a helmet is a good thing.  Like most people, you haven't (so far) been
curious enough about it to actually look up any real data on risks or
benefits.

By the way, the group of helmet-enthusiast bicyclists is largely confined
to America, from what I see.  In most other countries, even dedicated
cyclists think cycling without a helmet is just fine.  They've been cycling
for transport, sport, recreation and racing in far greater numbers than
we Americans since the turn of the century.  They know cycling in ways
that Americans have yet to learn.  In general, they don't see the point
of the funny hats.

I just read a British book on cycling.  The only mention of helmets was
when describing various foreign cyclists who visit Britain: "... the
Americans with their crash helmets and expensive gear...".  The pictures
show people of all types out touring.  Only the racing pictures show
any helmets at all.

We're different here in America.  Only here do we consider riding a
bicycle to be life threatening.
--

Frank Krygowski ae...@yfn.ysu.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/24/98 12:00 AM
dph...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>I have no problem letting other riders wear a helmet and leaving them
>alone.  I only ask that the same courtesy be extended to me and my
>bandanna-ensconced head.

Great.  Then we have no argument.

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/24/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>We are not the ones preaching at people.

[lots of preaching snipped]

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>What are answers to irrelevant questions about irreal good for?

What is 'irreal'?  I couldn't find this in my dictionary.

>Dave, assume that 2+2=5. Would you prefer 7+4 to be 11, then, or would
>you prefer it to be 13?

Depends on who's paying.

>If such cheap, kindergarden like rhetoric is all you have to present
>for bicycle helmets, your case is rather weak.

Two things:

1) I'm not making a case for helmets.  I'm making a case against
your very existence, dear Wolfgang.  I am doing this because I am a
bad person and I enjoy bugging the crap out of you.

2) It's 'kindergarten', not 'kindergarden'.  The word is of German
origin.  And 'rhetoric' is also misspelled; it should have a silent
'q' at the end, like Paula 'Devicq', the actress on Party of Five.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tom Kunich 7/24/98 12:00 AM
Bob Cardone wrote:
>
>
> I don't wear a helmet when I have sex.

I guess at your advanced age that means that your helmet is
permanently afixed to the top of your head.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Barryt59 7/25/98 12:00 AM
You may not wear a helmet when you have sex, but Bill Holden should have worn
one when he drank.  <g>

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/25/98 12:00 AM
Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com> wrote:


At my age I still have  a great deal of sex. You see I don't stay on
my computer 22 hours a day writing ridiculous anti helmet posts.. ( In
other words, I have a life)   Not like some people around here <G>


Bob Cardone

Helmet Warriors-please read (Was: Casarteli and Boardman) WKor III 7/25/98 12:00 AM
My (late) blue Bell, cheap at $25, saved my life when a car hit me. Didn't keep
me from getting a broken pelvis, but that would have happened with or without
the helmet. Incredible what a piece of styrofoam with a strap can do. All I had
were some serious cuts, some from the helmet; on my head and face.
How could I not wear one now? How could anyone?
that's my 2c......

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/25/98 12:00 AM
> I don't wear a helmet when I have sex.
>
> Bob Cardone

So you do wear one 24 hours a day!

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/25/98 12:00 AM

Bob Cardone (cardone!@mindspring.com) writes:
> ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>
>>
>>Bob Cardone (cardone!@mindspring.com) managed to write:
>>
>>......
>>
>>> I am really not as stupid as I look.
>>>

That you actually replied disproved your own admission - you are as you look.

>
> Avery,
>
> One of your anti Helmet Zombies edited what i wrote and left a few
> words out so that it would get the spin he wanted.  The quote is on a
> T-shirt designed for helmetless riders .... it says
>
>
> " I am really not as stupid as I look.  Remember , it's a T-shirt only
> for Helmetless riders to try and  improve their self image
>
> Bob Cardone


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/25/98 12:00 AM
> The only time I've ever been hit was when I was riding straight down a
> road and a car did a running stop and slammed into me. Very little else
> one could do to ride "safer."

From the jist of what one hears on the newsgroups (so is probably
distantly related to fact) stop signs in US only apply to foreigners.
With the habit of american motorists being to ignore such signs, oen
surely would get into th ehabit of seeing such cars approaching the
stop, assess there speed, and work out whether or not they are slowing
down to stop, and adjust ones speed accordingly to avoid them.

Its second nature after a while to watch every junction for the car that
'didn't see you'. So far this year I have avoided at least three of
those by anticipation and watching what they are doing. (They got a
verbal reminder that their behaviour wasn't in accordance with the
traffic code).

So thats three 'helmet saved my life' stories that never happened.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/25/98 12:00 AM
Bob Cardone wrote:
>
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
> >Bob Cardone wrote:
> >
> >> That's speculation on your part and that speculation plus $1.50 will
> >> get you on the subway in New York.  It's conjecture and totally
> >> irrelevant.  Where do you get your info that the lives saved would be
> >> just a short line?  Bull crap. You anti helmet guys just make up
> >> stuff, post it on here, read your own stuff and start to believe it.
> >> <G>

I'll repeat, just for your benefit

: >Do I get an apology now I have shown you the sources for these
figures?
: >Or are you so emotionally locked into the helmet cult that you cannot
: >fathom anyone daring to challenge religious dogma.

And the answer is no, you are not prepared to admit that I had a
rational basis (official US govt. stats no less) for the claims I made.
You made a gross allegation against me. I would like you to apologise
for that.


> I have personnally dinged 2 helmets.
> It doesn't show in any accident or fatality stats, but in the one
> instance ( inline skating) I would have probably sustained at least a
> concussion, if not a skull fracture.  All it cost me was a $39.95
> helmet.

Well blow me down. This is rec.bicycles.soc right? WHat does breaking
in-line skateing helmets have to do with riding bicycles?

So far I have dinged precisely neither of my two helmets, nor sustained
any injury to any part of my head that could have been prevented by a
helmet. Thats 100 quid down hte drain, plus the hassle and inconvenience
of lugging the things around.

I work on far cheaper methods than you for eliminating head injury. You
spend 39.95 on a lump of polystyrene to put between your head and the
ground. I find air is far cheaper and doesn't require me to get off the
bike.

 
> Minimizing any risk is the name of the game.

Then you really are a sad individual.
Minimising obvious risks where practical is a far more sensible
approach.
I minimise my risk of having hassle from a helmet. Does that count?
I minimise my chances of getting heatstroke from wearing a helmet. DOes
that count?
I minimise my chances of going bankrupt through replacing all those
crushed helmets after accidents. Does that count?

..d

I'm still waiting for that apology.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/25/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:


Get a Life

Bob


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/25/98 12:00 AM

Bob Cardone (cardone!@!mindspring.com) writes:
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
>>
.....

>>
>>I'm still waiting for that apology.
>
>
> Get a Life

Bob, you need to get a bike and go ride it.

You have contributed nothing other than abuse.

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Boston Drivers(Was: Casarteli and Boardman) Jym Dyer 7/25/98 12:00 AM
>> I find Boston drivers predictable and reasonably skilled.
> This is the most astonishing statement I've read on this
> news group.

=o= Boston drivers are predictable in that you generally expect
them to take any opportunity to move, even if it means cutting
others off.  They're "skilled" in that they generally have to
contend with being cut off all the time.

=o= With respect to cyclists, though, you can also pretty much
expect Boston drivers to be predictably obvlivious of our
existence, and very skilled at threatening our lives.
    <_Jym_>

Agressive drivers, was Re: Boston Drivers(Was: Casarteli and Boardman) Matt O'Toole 7/25/98 12:00 AM

All of the above is true, sort of.  Boston drivers are
generally really alert, but that's only because they're so
focussed on the "competition."  The fact remains that
they're too aggressive and going too fast, leaving very
litle margin for unexpected occurrances, such as the sudden
appearance of a cyclist.  

However, Boston drivers do seem mostly to be running their
own race, mostly concentrating on getting where they're
going as fast as they can.  Here in Orange County, CA,
drivers put as much energy into screwing with each other as
they do trying to get where they're going.  Everyone I talk
to that comes here from somewhere else comments on this.
However, you really notice it when you're riding a bicycle.
You can hear the engines race as drivers try to be first
towards the next lane opening, or worse, as they try to foil
each other's attempts to move ahead or move over.  Even when
there are 4 open lanes to choose from, drivers will try to
trap each other behind slow moving trucks, rather than just
move around all the other traffic with room to spare, and be
on their own way.  

This reckless sparring is dangerous enough to the drivers
involved.  It can be deadly to cyclists and pedestrians.
Drivers are so engrossed in doing battle with each other,
that they're totally oblivious to anything else around
them.  I'm aware of two cyclist fatalities that occurred
here lately, in the same type of traffic situation. They
happened where 4 lanes narrow into 3, with the right lane
ending.  Merging drivers are racing ahead in this
soon-to-end lane, perhaps even running down the shoulder,
trying to merge ahead of cars on their left.  Cars on the
left are doing their best not to let them in.  The merging
cars are tailgating each other, and thus cannot see around
the cars in front of them, plus, they're looking over their
left shoulder, as they try to force their way over.  They
cannot, and do not, see the cyclist on their right.  Splat.

Matt O.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/25/98 12:00 AM
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:

>
>Bob Cardone (cardone!@!mindspring.com) writes:
>> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>>>
>.....
>>>
>>>I'm still waiting for that apology.
>>
>>
>> Get a Life
>
>Bob, you need to get a bike and go ride it.
>
>You have contributed nothing other than abuse.

I probably ride a great deal more in a Year than you would ever think
of riding Avery. Do you top 4,000 a year?? ( PS,  I am 58) when I was
younger,  4,000 was accomplished by October.

( Anti Helmet Zealots get testy when challenged. Must run in the
family <G>

Bob.  

Free Computers - Get Yours Now Pete Salomone 7/25/98 12:00 AM
Dear Sir/Madam:

The six-month computer lease on my Dell laptop expires 7/31/98.  I will
be terminating the lease and returning the laptop using the UPS call tag
you guys at Dell provided.  

Can I keep this laptop for $3 less the $37.50 you will have to pay for
the UPS call tag and a second $37.50 to ship the laptop back to me?

If I can do this please send me $72 (2*$37.50-$3).

TIA,

Pete

Dell.R...@intercomm.com wrote:

Dell Research is giving away multimedia desktop and laptop lease return
computers!

  We are researching how people use the Internet and have decided to
compensate people in a new and
exciting way! When you consider everything involved in doing research:
Office Space, Wages, Workmans Comp, Social Security, Medical Insurance,
Ect
Ect it becomes clear that it makes more sense to give away lease return
computers as compensation for 6 monthly questionnaires. This is where
you
come in, after using the Internet for atleast 12 hours per month, simply
fill out a questionnaire in the comfort of your own home and you earn a
free
computer! No selling, No payments, and best of all, you receive the
computer
up front! This is a limited time opportunity! As of Friday, August 7th
1998
this opportunity will no longer be available so act now!

You can choose either one of the lease return computers listed below:

  Home Desktop Computer:

     333MHz Pentium II
     64 MB SDRAM Memory
     8.4GB Ultra ATA Hard drive
     15" SVGA Monitor
     4MB 3D Video Card
     24X CD-ROM
     3D Sound Card
     56K Modem
     Speakers, Keyboard, and Mouse

  Or A Laptop Computer:

     233MHz Pentium
     32 MB SDRAM Memory
     2.1GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
     12.1" SVGA Monitor
     2MB Video Card
     16X CD-ROM
     Wave Table Sound Card
     33.6K Modem
     Internal Speakers
     Deluxe Nylon Carrying Case

  It's simple and it is your choice which computer that you receive.

As mentioned above, this opportunity closes on Friday, August 7th 1998.
Get
started right away!

Rush a self addressed stamped envelope and $3
(3 U.S. Dollar Bills) to cover processing costs to:

Dell Research
P.O. Box 6599
Reno, NV. 89513


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots Avery Burdett 7/25/98 12:00 AM

I'm sure readers are not interested what mileage Cardone or I ride each
year, but his challenge shows that he not only spews nonsense about
helmet use, but he's useless at guessing.

Bob Cardone (cardone!@!mindspring.com) writes:
> ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
.........

>>
>>Bob, you need to get a bike and go ride it.
>>
>>You have contributed nothing other than abuse.
>
> I probably ride a great deal more in a Year than you would ever think
> of riding Avery. Do you top 4,000 a year?? ( PS,  I am 58) when I was
> younger,  4,000 was accomplished by October.

Glad you said probably, since of course you don't know. You are also
wrong. I just added together the kilometres from the computers on my touring
bike and my road racing bike and they add up to just over 7,100km this
year. Which would be about 4300 miles. By the end of the year, when snow
will have been on the ground for about 6 weeks, that should be about
11,000km (6,700 miles).

So if you'd cut the drivel and ride, you might be able to do that by August,
1999.


>
> ( Anti Helmet Zealots get testy when challenged. Must run in the
> family <G>
>
> Bob.  


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots Jim Quinn 7/25/98 12:00 AM
I got you both beat.  10,500 miles last year (and that was with a 6 week period
with no cycling).  Of course we don't have any winters where I live.
Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Obe...@my-dejanews.com 7/26/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b9e7f3...@news.mindspring.com>,

  cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
> >Bob Cardone wrote:

And quite a few others...

I don't get on news that often these days (we no longer have a news service
at my Uni), today I found 252 unread articles - and at least half of them
had to have the same subject line!

I live in the only country in the world which has a mandatory cycle helmet
law which applies to all its citizens (apart from those who qualify for
exemptions), repeat the ONLY such country in the world (last time I checked
anyway), not even Oz can claim that. We have a law for two reasons:

1) After a freak accident when a child was brain damaged for life his mother
   (apparently) need to find reason for this - she found solace from the
   Helmetists, a modern religious cult who worship the miraculous powers
   of plastic foam when bent into a hemi-spherical shape. This Kiwi "lid"
   supposedly works as an anti-magnet, forcing speeding vehicles away from
   wearers...

2) A Government who saw a great PR opportunity.

The law has, unsurprisngly, not worked. Sure a lot of helmets have been sold,
but the danger to cyclists hasn't been reduced one iota.

Common folks, just think for a moment. Look at a helmet, then look at a
speeding car, and place a bet on which one is going to win in a fight!

Then look at the cycle safety records of governments which have adopted
helmets laws, and compare them to those which have opted instead for
road safety measures - the latter have BETTER safety records.

NZ enacted its law over 5 years ago, NOT ONE COUNTRY has followed - and some
governments have gone as far as using NZ & Oz as exmaples of why they
shouldn't adopt legislation. The Helmetists themselves don't even laud us!

Of course, a helmet might help you out in a freak accident. Just like it
may if you trip while walking (or walk into a lamppost while reading a book,
which it what killed one young man from Tawian). But accident prevention
isn't about protecting against the unlikely exception now is it?

As to the title of all these messages. I might ask in return what about
the unlucky gymnast who landed on her head on a shock-absorbing mat? Pity
she didn't have a helmet on... trust they will be required in the next
games... yeah, right!

Now I'll go don my flameproof clothing ready for those of you who would
prefer to deny common sense and science!

From the Land where Child/Cyclist Abuse Is COMPULSORY

Cheers,
        Nigel

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Helmet Warriors-please read (Was: Casarteli and Boardman) Frank Krygowski 7/26/98 12:00 AM

You probably won't understand this (since people have a great deal of
difficulty being objective about their own experiences) but:

The generally available statistics indicate that if your helmet really did
save your life, it's the same sort of quirk as a cigarette lighter stopping
a bullet to the heart.  It's very rare.

It's not impossible, but it's so rare that nobody with good judgement would
bet on it happening again soon.  Yet, if a cigarette lighter (or helmet)
did miraculously save your life, you could be excused if you never traveled
without one.  It would be an understandable personal quirk.

>How could anyone?

You mean like how could all the bicyclists down through recorded history,
including 99% of the cyclists in the world today?

Strange question!  Can't you tell whose perspective is distorted?
--

Frank Krygowski ae...@yfn.ysu.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots Bob Cardone 7/26/98 12:00 AM
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:

>
>I'm sure readers are not interested what mileage Cardone or I ride each
>year, but his challenge shows that he not only spews nonsense about
>helmet use, but he's useless at guessing.
>
>Bob Cardone (cardone!@!mindspring.com) writes:
>> ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>.........
>>>
>>>Bob, you need to get a bike and go ride it.
>>>
>>>You have contributed nothing other than abuse.
>>
>> I probably ride a great deal more in a Year than you would ever think
>> of riding Avery. Do you top 4,000 a year?? ( PS,  I am 58) when I was
>> younger,  4,000 was accomplished by October.
>
>Glad you said probably, since of course you don't know. You are also
>wrong. I just added together the kilometres from the computers on my touring
>bike and my road racing bike and they add up to just over 7,100km this
>year. Which would be about 4300 miles. By the end of the year, when snow
>will have been on the ground for about 6 weeks, that should be about
>11,000km (6,700 miles).
>
>So if you'd cut the drivel and ride, you might be able to do that by August,
>1999.
>>
>> ( Anti Helmet Zealots get testy when challenged. Must run in the
>> family <G>
>>
>> Bob.  

When do you have time to ride. With the frequency of your meaningless
posts one would figure that you spend about  8 to 10 hours a day stuck
in front of your PC trying to think of something semi logical to spew.


How long is the riding season in Ottawa?  You must be riding 500 miles
a week. Should have joined the Tour De France.


Bob

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots Bob Cardone 7/26/98 12:00 AM
Jim Quinn <jimq...@flash.net> wrote:

>I got you both beat.  10,500 miles last year (and that was with a 6 week period
>with no cycling).  Of course we don't have any winters where I live.
>
>Avery Burdett wrote:
>
I think Avery must be one helluva rider to accomplish that type of
mileage in Canada.  Maybe it's a figment of his imagination.

Bob

Helmet Warriors-please read (Was: Casarteli and Boardman) Bob Cardone 7/26/98 12:00 AM
ae...@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank Krygowski) wrote:

>
>In a previous article, wko...@aol.com (WKor III) says:
>
>>My (late) blue Bell, cheap at $25, saved my life when a car hit me. Didn't keep
>>me from getting a broken pelvis, but that would have happened with or without
>>the helmet. Incredible what a piece of styrofoam with a strap can do. All I had
>>were some serious cuts, some from the helmet; on my head and face.
>>How could I not wear one now?
>
>You probably won't understand this (since people have a great deal of
>difficulty being objective about their own experiences) but:
>
>The generally available statistics indicate that if your helmet really did
>save your life, it's the same sort of quirk as a cigarette lighter stopping
>a bullet to the heart.  It's very rare.
>

Thats bullcrap!  


Bob

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/26/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
[ in a stroke of brilliance, I wrote]

>>2) It's 'kindergarten', not 'kindergarden'.  The word is of German
>>origin.  
>
>Danke für die freundliche Auskunft, David, aber das weiß ich längst, ich
>habe mich bloß vertippt, daß passiert mir häufiger, wenn ich schnell
>schreibe. Außerdem gehen einem deutsche Wörter in einem
>englischsprachigen Artikel etwas schwer von der Hand, vielleicht liegt
>das auch daran.
>
>Ich bin übrigens selber deutschen Ursprungs, tatsächlich lebe ich sogar
>seit meiner Geburt in Deutschland. Du trägst also Eulen nach Athen.

Check out the defensive reaction from you, baby!  Check
you out, yo!  See, that little '.de' on the end of your address,
combined with your name, gave me a little hint as to your
national origin, so I leaped, yes, leaped, on this opportunity
to poke at you with the kindergar[td]en thing, and you, like,
totally took the bait!  Yea, verily!  Check out how earnest
you are!  Coals to Newcastle, my ass!  This sentence ends
with a period to break the pattern.

>>And 'rhetoric' is also misspelled; it should have a silent
>>'q' at the end, like Paula 'Devicq', the actress on Party of Five.
>
>I don't know what dictionary you are using here, but I suggest that you
>throw it away, immediately.

<snicker>  <chortle> <mmmmgpppghgghghghhfhfhfhhh>
Got you again, dear friend.  I send you my love and forgiveness,
and wish you a pleasant life.  

Satan's friskiest lap dog,
I remain,

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Helmet Warriors-please read (Was: Casarteli and Boardman) Frank Krygowski 7/26/98 12:00 AM

As always, Bob weighs in with some barnyard language and no facts at all.
Bob, it's clear you have no way of telling when you're embarrassing yourself.

Look, if helmets commonly prevented fatalities, then fatalities would drop
when helmet use rises, and do so at a greater rate than the reduction in
cycling that accompanies helmet laws and helmet over-promotion.

Look at the data for, say, California, with its under-18 mandatory
helmet law.  Four years prior to the law averaged 34.75 under-18 fatalities
per year.  Two years after the law (the last I got data for) averaged
34.50 under-18 fatalities.  How common was a helmet's saving a life?

Of course, that data is a bit crude.  It ignores the fact that not all
California kids really wear helmets - but the law certainly increased the
percentage that did.  But it also ignores any kids that stopped cycling
because of the MHL, although other jurisdictions have demonstrated that
this is common.

You can duplicate this sort of data using other locations.  Helmet
proponents never mention the per-cyclist fatality rates, either because
they carefully refuse to take into account drops in cycling, or because
they don't have the honesty to tell what's really happening.

To understand all this, it's necessary to spend some time studying the
available data.  Those whose interests run to barnyard excrement won't
be able to contribute much to the discussion, though.
--

Frank Krygowski ae...@yfn.ysu.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots Avery Burdett 7/26/98 12:00 AM

Jim Quinn (jimq...@flash.net) writes:
> I got you both beat.  10,500 miles last year (and that was with a 6 week period
> with no cycling).  Of course we don't have any winters where I live.
>

Well done, Jim.

I didn't, and don't, think what I do is anything special - less than 20
miles a day average - I just wanted to show what an ass Cardone is,
although he does a pretty good job without my help.


> Avery Burdett wrote:
>
>> I'm sure readers are not interested what mileage Cardone or I ride each
>> year, but his challenge shows that he not only spews nonsense about
>> helmet use, but he's useless at guessing.
>>
>> Bob Cardone (cardone!@!mindspring.com) writes:
>> > ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>> .........
>> >>
>> >>Bob, you need to get a bike and go ride it.
>> >>
>> >>You have contributed nothing other than abuse.
>> >
>> > I probably ride a great deal more in a Year than you would ever think
>> > of riding Avery. Do you top 4,000 a year?? ( PS,  I am 58) when I was
>> > younger,  4,000 was accomplished by October.
>>
>> Glad you said probably, since of course you don't know. You are also
>> wrong. I just added together the kilometres from the computers on my touring
>> bike and my road racing bike and they add up to just over 7,100km this
>> year. Which would be about 4300 miles. By the end of the year, when snow
>> will have been on the ground for about 6 weeks, that should be about
>> 11,000km (6,700 miles).
>>
>> So if you'd cut the drivel and ride, you might be able to do that by August,
>> 1999.
>> >
>> > ( Anti Helmet Zealots get testy when challenged. Must run in the
>> > family <G>
>> >
>> > Bob.
>>
>> --
>> Avery Burdett
>> Ottawa, Ontario
>
>
>

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Hajaj 7/27/98 12:00 AM
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 16:55:41 -0400, "B_Davies" <zen...@ou.edu> wrote:

>Ok, break it up.
>move along now...
>
 If you don't want to contribute to the discussion then, don't.

Hajaj

Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law

And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:
 
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/27/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>
>>dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:
>>
>>>Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>>>
>>>>So I guess you wear your helmet when driving your car, too?
>>>
>>>You and Tom are so bogus and hypocritical it makes me
>>
>>You were the one claiming that "wearing a helmet is such a minor
>>burden". So
>>
>>You display a classical example of applying a double standard. You try
>>to press us into wearing a bizarre safety gadget during an relatively
>>safe everyday activity, you call me names when I ask you in turn,
>>whether you do so in a comparable, slightly more dangerous activity or
>>not.
>>
>>You are the hypocrite, sir.

>My goodness me, Wolfgang, I go off to work for a day and
>look what a mess you've made!  First, you should check your
>facts.  I never said that "wearing a helmet is such a minor burden."

So your infantile rant was completely unrelated to the dialog between
Michael (who made that statement) and me?  Did you call Tom and me
names without reason and context?

It was my impression that you tried to support Michaels statement (that
you agree to) with your rant. Now you tell me that it was completely
bogus.  Now, that's fine with me, too.


>Someone else said that.  Not only that, but I've never insisted that
>you or anybody else should wear a helmet.  

Stay to the topic, please.  Im' not sure whether you try to make a
point at all, or whether you just try to muddy the waters and to
produce confusion.  Either you do, or you somehow tried to support
Michaels claim that "wearing a helmet is such a minor burden". If it's
the former, I see no point in continuing the discussion. In the latter
case, the question stands: if "wearing a helmet is such minor burden",
why do you only cover estimated mere 1 % of your head injury risk? Why
do you, for example, don't wear it while walking, or while driving a
car?


>I challenge you to find
>a quote from any of my posts where I say such a thing.  In fact,
>you'll find that I often went to great lengths to state that I was
>*not* making an argument for why everybody should wear helmets.

Well, that's a great discussion tactic, Dave, I'm very impressed. My
youngest son has recently detected that "but I didn't say that!!"
trick, too, and tries to apply it everywhere. But he certainly will get
over it. I hope you will, too.

>Because this has been such a point of confusion for you, I'm going
>to have to ask that you acknowledge explicity that this is my position
>before we continue this discussion.  

What discussion, what position?

Michael wrote "...because wearing a helmet is such a minor burden". I
asked "so you wear a helmet in your car, too?", and you stepped in with
calling me "so bogus and hypocritical it makes you
want to vomit", appending a bizzarre story and question with only one
relavant property: it fishes for a "yes, I wear a helmet" answer.

My friend, I acknowledge that you called me names without reason, when
stepping into this discussion. I notice that you did this in defense of
a certain position, but acknowledge that you quickly backtracked, when
asked about it.

If you actually have a position worth discussing, about the matter
discussed in this thread, please elaborate.

>Oh, and by the way, this
>eliminates your claim that I am applying a double standard, am
>a hypocrite, etc.  

Well, I couldn't come up with a better example of a hypocrite than
somebody who, in defense of a certain point of view,  tries to shout
somebody down with insults, but evades the discussion by (correctly)
pointing out that he didn't claim anything.


>I can only guess that you've deliberately
>misunderstood me, repeatedly, because you are unable to
>come up with a logical response to my arguments.

Calling somebody names makes an argument? You, my friend, are
excessivly proud of having made no argument at all.

[x] Go away.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/27/98 12:00 AM
jglad...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <35b9fa2a....@news.gmd.de>,
>  Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>> Michael Brideson <m.bri...@student.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Certainly when I go riding I don't want to go out in a protective
>> >capsule, but wearing a helmet is such a minor burden.


>>
>> So I guess you wear your helmet when driving your car, too?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >Here in Queensland (Australia), it is illegal to ride a bicycle without
>> >one.
>>
>> And you  approve that, do you?
>>
>> >The only person who I've heard complain about it is my wife who
>> >grew up on the bicycle-friendly, non-helmet-wearing roads of Holland.
>>
>> The streets of Holland are a lot less bicycle-friendly than the streets
>> of, say, New England. Drivers are much worse, too.

>>
>> --
>> Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic
>>
>
>with all due respect, you have clearly not ridden in Boston lately.

I just spend a three week vacation in the New England area (came back
last sunday), starting and finishing in Boston. Together, we spent six
whole days in Boston.  I haven't ridden, there, though, only driven a
rented car.   I thought about bringing over one bicycle for me, while
planning, but faced with the threat that I might violate a MHL in one
of the four states we visited in our journey, I decided that the
benefit would't justify the expense. I don't want to violate traffic
laws (however idiotic) in foreign countries. In addition, we already
had more than enough baggage to store for two adults and two children,
so we decided to do the trip by car, only.

Speaking about Boston, we had the car for only one day, there, so we
walked, most of the time we spent in Boston. But given my in interest
in bicycling traffic, I carefully observed bicyclists and their
behaviour and interaction with trafffic, whereever I could, both from a
drivers and a pedestrians point of view.

Given that fact that I am both an experienced driver and an experienced
traffic bicyclist interested and dealing with the matter for years, I
believe that I can make a valid judgmenent even without having actually
cycled.  Having to compare riding through Bonn (my home town) at rush
hour, or doing so in Boston, I'd consider Boston much simpler. The
drivers are less agressive, there is less competition, and there is
more space to share.   The only part I'd consider to be a bit difficult
are the road conditions. There is more dirt and there is more damage on
the roads borders in America, in comparison to what I am accustomed to.


--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/27/98 12:00 AM
Robert Oliver <rol...@mint.net> wrote:

>> BTW....the *first* physical safety measure of a cyclist is riding
>> safely.....not protective armor.
>
>Well, that sounds good, and it is in fact a good thing, but riding
>safely will not protect you from idiotic motorists.

That ubiqitous statement is one of the reasons why I am not just
indifferent, but dedicatedly against promoting bicycle helmets as a
traffic safety concept.

Contrary to that statement, "Riding safely" in all its variants is the
ONLY measure which might protect you from motorists, idiotic and
otherwise.  The very notion that a helmet might be of sufficient value
in a impact from a fast car is completely bogus.   Spreading that
superstition gives rise to risk compensation on both sides of the
fence. Personally, I fear motorists believing in the magic capabilities
of helmets more than I fear bicyclist who do so.


>There seems to be
>this theory going around that safe riding will prevent numerous
>accidents, and somewhat negate the need for a helmet.

You got that backwards. There is no need for a helmet (measured by
using the level of risk people accept when driving, or when walking
near traffic). What isn't doesn't have to be "negated".

On the other hand, safe riding does prevent numerous accidents, this
isn't just theory, this is daily practice of millions of cyclists.

>Most of my run-ins with cars are when I am safely following the rules of
>the road 100% No matter how safe I am it often just doesn't help.

That's a beginners mistake.  Look, when I got my first car some 30
years ago, it took me only half a week to get it crashed. It wasn't my
fault, not at all (somebody hit me from behind because he hadn't
noticed that traffic had stopped in front of us, because he was
lamenting scolding a pedestrian who didn't crossed the road at the
crasswalk, through the open window of his car), and I'm not quite sure
whether I could have done anything about (the sudden traffic stop did
catch my by surprise, too - somebody in front of me suddenly decided to
turn right and had to stop because of another pedestrian).  But somehow
I learned how to behave in order to minimize the risk of that specific
accident type, it did'nt happen to me in 30 years of driving a car,
again.

Following the rules of the road is the first safety measure. Doing it
100% isn't always a good idea, and believing that that's all you can do
is certainly wrong.   As a bicyclist, you have more options (all legal)
than you might believe, and these vary greatly in generated risk.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/27/98 12:00 AM
Scott Chan <sco...@juniper.net> wrote:

>Cars have many more protective devices than just seat belts and
>air bags.  Padded
>interiors (pillars, steering wheels, dash), safety glass, etc.
>have all improved survivability.  Whack your head in a modern
>car and you might still have some sense left.  Whack your head in a '58
>Chevy and the injuries will be more severe.  Cyclists have had
>no such innovations protecting our heads, except for helmets.

Of course they have. At least around here, many modern cars are much
less dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists than older ones. There is
still much (too much) room for improvement in that area, but as it
seems, that helmet hype is quite successfull in drawing the attention
away from what could be called "outside safety" of a car.  


--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti Wolfgang Strobl 7/27/98 12:00 AM
jimq...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>So how do you do that when you use netscape rather than Outlook.  Please reply
>by e-mail so that I will get the message.  I don't read most of the helmet
>posts.

But, alas, it doesn't work that way.

May I suggest again that people contributing nothing to this threat but
irrelevant off-topic questions would be better of reading their
documentation? It should't take you more than 15 seconds to figure it
out yourself.

--
      o      (    Wolfgan...@gmd.de          (+49 2241) 14-2394
     /\        *  GMD Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH
   _`\ `_<===     Schloss Birlinghoven,           | #include
__(_)/_(_)___.-._ D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany | <std.disclaimer>

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Andrew Albright 7/27/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote lots and lots of stuff.

This thread has reminded me of a funny joke:

What did 100 years of neuroanatomy prove?

That you can't bore a German.  

(Kunich must have some German blood too, no?  I'm not sure what Burdett's
problem is, that name is decidely not-German.  A keen observer will surely
note the frequent use of the word "Nazi" in these helmet threads, which is
probably more than just ironic.)

Andrew Albright

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/27/98 12:00 AM
alb...@mail.med.upenn.nospam.edu (Andrew Albright) wrote:

>This thread has reminded me of a funny joke:

An All American joke, I presume?

Well, from a recent three week visit to your country I am happy to tell
you something you should know. This very rude behaviour shown by a few
people (including of course our dear friend Andrew) here in this forum
isn't in any way typical. I found most people I met there to be
exceptionally courteous, helpfull and polite.

Each country of course has their share of jerks who believe the
civilized word to end shortly after their noses length, who judge
people by their name, by their birth, by their color or what. Germany
certainly has (we are more sensitive in that specific matter nowadays
than most other nations, though), but as we saw here, so does the U.S.
of A.  

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/27/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>Check out the defensive reaction from you, baby!  Check
>you out, yo!  
...

>Coals to Newcastle, my ass!  This sentence ends
>with a period to break the pattern.
><snicker>  <chortle> <mmmmgpppghgghghghhfhfhfhhh>
>Got you again, dear friend.  

etc. etc.

Somehow I've got to believe this guy lives in his very own world. Well,
I should have known, after reading this alien abductions nonsense from
him ...

F'up to talk.bizarre

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/27/98 12:00 AM

Andrew Albright (alb...@mail.med.upenn.nospam.edu) writes:
> Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote lots and lots of stuff.
>
> This thread has reminded me of a funny joke:
>
> What did 100 years of neuroanatomy prove?
>
> That you can't bore a German.  
>
> (Kunich must have some German blood too, no?  I'm not sure what Burdett's
> problem is, that name is decidely not-German.  A keen observer will surely
> note the frequent use of the word "Nazi" in these helmet threads, which is
> probably more than just ironic.)
>
> Andrew Albright

And some get antonyms for names.


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Rick Denney 7/27/98 12:00 AM
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 20:10:43 GMT, dph...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>
>Well, I haven't ridden in Holland but my most recent ride in Boston
>was on Tuesday.  No helmet *and* I lived to tell about it.  I find


>Boston drivers predictable and reasonably skilled.

I make it a practice to avoid the helmet wars. I don't usually read
the threads. They are usually so full of B.S. and ad hominem attacks
that even I, despite my high tolerance for same, get disgusted by
them. But something about the aura of this post called to me, and I
helplessly wandered into this thread. Perhaps I was abducted by
aliens.

Two points come to mind.

The statement "No helmet and I lived to tell about it" is exactly the
same as "I smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and lived to the age
of 104". It is utterly anecdotal and without any argumentative merit.
Not that I care which way the helmet wars go. I always wear a helmet,
and I don't feel like my freedom is being challenged if laws requiring
me to do so are put in place. If someone else wants to ride sans
helmet, it's okay with me, but those I know in person who insist on
doing so always struck me as using the argument to promote some macho
self-image. Fine. To each his own. Certainly the sin of this bit of
anecdotal fluff is minor compared to the garbage that regularly passes
back and forth in the helmet wars.

But the second point glows in the dark and must be challenged. Boston
drivers are the worst that I've seen in any city I've travelled to,
including Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, San
Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, Copenhagen and even Miami, all of which I
have driven in and observed at close range within the last year.
Boston drivers follow too closely. They drive too fast on streets that
are too narrow with too many pedestrians. They play chicken with each
other in merge situations even worse than Texans. The cab drivers are
psychopathic. The drivers regularly turn right through mobs of
pedestrians, including high-speed approaches to those mobs followed by
standing on the brakes to try to intimidate the mobees into
scattering, which the mobees will not do because they would rather die
than look like tourists. I've seen Boston drivers follow cyclists at
the range of one foot, at speed. I've seen them blow by cyclists with
their hand on the horn, only to slam on the brakes and turn right
immediately in front of them. I've seen them pass cyclists with six
inches of clearance, despite the weaving line of cyclists trying to
find some smoothness on some of the most poorly maintained pavement in
the Western world. The joke is that Boston motorists drive with one
hand on the horn and one foot all the way to the floor--either on the
gas or brake pedals. It amazes me that people who are so friendly in
their personal dealings with people can become such demons in traffic.
All of these faults can be observed in other cities, but not as
comprehnsively or as erratically as in Boston.

The only predictability I observed among Boston motorists was the
uniform desire to get their first, wherever "there" was, without
regard to the safety, well-being, or rights of any others on the road.

But, I have to admit that the cyclists are no better. I've seen them
do all the same things to pedestrians that cars do to them, especially
on trails that are designed to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians.

In contrast, Copenhagen, which is of course a long way from Holland,
though it is closer than any city I've visited, was the most
cycling-friendly city I've ever seen. The cyclists were ubiquitous in
traffic, and the motorists, while aggressive, gave cyclists respect as
equal members of the traffic stream. And the cyclists there uniformly
obeyed, within reason, the rules of the road, so that motorists could
predict their behavior and adjust accordingly. The cyclists were also
polite, and they walked their bicycles in the pedestrian-only malls.
Perhaps this was legally required, but I didn't see anyone sourly
bitching about it, either.


Rick Denney
Take what you want and leave the rest.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Bailey 7/27/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> It was my impression that you tried to support Michaels statement (that
> you agree to) with your rant. Now you tell me that it was completely
> bogus.  Now, that's fine with me, too.

You are just hopelessly confused.

>...if "wearing a helmet is such minor burden",


> why do you only cover estimated mere 1 % of your head injury risk? Why
> do you, for example, don't wear it while walking, or while driving a
> car?

Because I've never been injured while walking or driving my
car, but I have been injured in bike crashes.  So, in my
experience, practically all of my risk of injury comes from
riding my bike.  After living in Boston for a total of just
over five years, I think I know better than you what risks
cyclists face around here, despite your mindless trumpeting
of your three-week visit to New England.

> >Because this has been such a point of confusion for you, I'm going
> >to have to ask that you acknowledge explicity that this is my position
> >before we continue this discussion.
>
> What discussion, what position?

Yet again, you demonstrate your confusion.

> Michael wrote "...because wearing a helmet is such a minor burden". I
> asked "so you wear a helmet in your car, too?", and you stepped in with
> calling me "so bogus and hypocritical it makes you
> want to vomit", appending a bizzarre story and question with only one
> relavant property: it fishes for a "yes, I wear a helmet" answer.

Your hypocrisy lies in your knee-jerk attacking of other
people who happen not to share your point of view, even as
you claim merely to be defending yourself against the
pro-helmet zealots.  

Your bogosity (Is this a word?  It should be.) lies in the
bullshit figures you keep quoting as justification for your
"so do you wear your helmet in your car" attacks.  The
reason the figures are bullshit is, we have no way of knowing
how many more head injuries cyclists would suffer if none
wore helmets.  It is called an uncontrolled experiment.  To
cite uncontrolled experiments as concrete justification for
some argument is to be bogus.  Period.  

> My friend, I acknowledge that you called me names without reason, when
> stepping into this discussion.

No, you earned the names, as I've brilliantly demostrated
above.  But I still love you and cherish your friendship.

> If you actually have a position worth discussing, about the matter
> discussed in this thread, please elaborate.

But that's precisely what's so funny about this thread.  The
only position that makes any sense is the one that I've taken,
namely, that this whole thing is a giant farce, and that the
argument itself is little more than the deranged rantings of
a few stubborn morons who insist on following up to every
single post with one of their own.  It reminds me of a dog
leaking on every single bush and fire hydrant it can find,
just to leave its mark.  It also reminds me of a toilet
overflowing, because you know it's repugnant and disgusting,
but you can't stop watching in morbid fascination.  There,
I said it.  Your posts, Wolfgang, are the overflowing toilet
of r.b.r.  And I am the plunger, fearless, rubberized, thrust
into your gaping maw with violent force by the hand of justice,
so that I may send your bubbling, stinking pile of excrement
gurgling down the drain and into the sewer where it belongs.

Astute readers will note the triple reference to flowing
water in the preceding paragraph:  the urinating dog, the
fire hydrant, and the overflowing toilet.  

--
Dave Bailey
dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Fattrax 7/27/98 12:00 AM
Right, and when driving a car, always wear a 3 point shoulder harness,
and a full helmet. This will save you! (maybe)
                Fattrax

> --
> Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/28/98 12:00 AM
cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:

>In article <35B88E80...@biotek.uio.no>, David Martin
><david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
>>BTW: Yes helmets do reduce minor injuries in an accident.
>>The population data suggests that they have little or no effect on
>>serious injuries.
>
>Thanks for a rare example of a completely accurate statement about the
>statistical studies: they do indeed *suggest* that helmets have little or
>no effect on serious injuries, just as physics suggests that they might
>well have such an effect.

Thanks for a common example of a statement trying to sell a falsehood by
intertwining it with a eminent truth.  

Physics doesn't in any way suggest that helmets have such an effect.
("Such" being sufficient protection against serious injuries). Just to
the contrary, the physics of simple falls on one hand and the physics of
high speed impacts on the other hand suggests just what those
aforementioned statistics suggest: bicycle helmets might perhaps work
where they aren't necessary at all and fail miserably in serious
accidents, most of the time. I.e. they are both a solution to a non
existing problem AND a non-solution to a real (though small) problem.

That suggestion "helmets might work" doesn't come from physics, it comes
from an effect which is cause for many fallacies, and which is happily
exploited for selling quackeries of all sorts, including, of course, the
infamous Bach flower remedies.   In the old times, it was somehow
obvious that shape ("Gestalt") detemines content and meaning: thunder
meant anger, sickness was an symptom of gult, and so on.  Science has
disproven and replaced this ancient concept centuries ago, but still
many people are somehow prone to it.  


> Because of the uncertainties inherent in
>population studies, and the lack of physical measurements in actual
>crashes, the population data does not prove that there's no effect,

Thats just how believers in alien abduction or in "therapeutic touch"
argue.

Dave, if this is really that difficult for you to understand, try it
this way. If the bicycle helmets protection is so weak that it isn't
even noticeable when many millions of people are religiosly wearing this
gadget for years, what is it worth, anyway?


>and
>the physics doesn't prove that there is one.

So in a way, from a scientific point of view, a helmets protection is
exactly as evident as the protection of a sacret bracelet inscribed with
a secret spell. Thanks for clearing that up, David!

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/28/98 12:00 AM
cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:

>In article <35b886f8.135601634@omega>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de wrote:
[...]
>>Dave, assume two possibilites. One, you will be in a car accident, crash
>>and hit your head. Two, you will be in the same exact accident, only
>>you'll be wearing a helmet.  
>>
>>What do you choose?
>
>Wearing a helmet.  See, I answered the simple question with a simple
>answer.  It was easy.

Now comes the uneasy part. Why does your behaviour in real situations
differ from your behaviour in imaginated ones?

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/28/98 12:00 AM
David Bailey <dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu> wrote:

>Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

>>...if "wearing a helmet is such minor burden",
>> why do you only cover estimated mere 1 % of your head injury risk? Why
>> do you, for example, don't wear it while walking, or while driving a
>> car?

>Because I've never been injured while walking or driving my
>car, but I have been injured in bike crashes.  

So you, like Tom Kunich, wear your helmet against bruises and minor
injuries? Well, that's fine with me. Just don't pretend that a helmet
is a "safety measure", and/or suggest that other people should make a
similar decision.  Personally, I have had my face severely hurt as
passenger in a car in my youth (no permanent damage, but it was the
worst injury I remember from that time). When I started using various
bicycles as a child, I already had learned how not to hit the ground
with my head when running and falling.  When I was injuried in bike
crashes, I injured my hands, my knees, my shoulder or ellbow - but not
my  head.

Personally, I try to avoid risks, instead of somehow "optimizing" them.
If I'd hit my head as often as you obviously do, I wouldn't start
wearing a helmet, but would give up bicycling.    But I do not.


>So, in my
>experience, practically all of my risk of injury comes from
>riding my bike.  After living in Boston for a total of just
>over five years, I think I know better than you what risks
>cyclists face around here, despite your mindless trumpeting
>of your three-week visit to New England.

So what. The relevant parameters don't vary that much, cars are
similar, speed is similar, rules of the roads are similar and the
distribution of driver types overlaps. Having just driven both in my
home town and in Boston in short succession, I have a more solid base
for an comparison of general drivers behaviour than you. And according
to my judgement, traffic in Bonn is generally worse.  It's only a very
estimate, but I think Bonn has about 5-8 times as many bicycling
traffic as Boston has (about 13 % according to a local count), and,
according to my own counts, only about 1 % of adults wear helmets.
Nevertheless, traffic fatalities of cyclists don't stand out in any
way.

Anyway, please tell me what risks cyclist face around there which

 - are typical for Bostons traffic
 - preventable by and only by helmets.


Please be specific, I'm curious.

[...]

>Your bogosity (Is this a word?  It should be.) lies in the
>bullshit figures you keep quoting as justification for your
>"so do you wear your helmet in your car" attacks.  

You seem to emphatically dislike reason, do you?


>The
>reason the figures are bullshit is, we have no way of knowing
>how many more head injuries cyclists would suffer if none
>wore helmets.  

Of course we have! Look, my friend, people in my country and my town
ride much more than in your country, face a much denser and more
agressive traffic, helmets are a rare exception (as I said, in the
about 1 % range for adults). But in spite of that, severely injured
bicyclists are a rarety.  Most fatal head injuries, whether you like to
hear that fact or not, occur at home or happen to people walking or
driving a car.

Two months ago, the actual numbers for traffic fatalities of children
got published.  Around here, bicycling to school still is the rule, and
a ride in their parents car the exception. Anyway, the majority of
children who die in traffic do so inside a car!


>It is called an uncontrolled experiment.  To
>cite uncontrolled experiments as concrete justification for
>some argument is to be bogus.  Period.

Bullshit. We aren't dealing with experiments here, you have been given
counts for a whole population. Do you understand the difference?

Bicyclists need helmets no more than pedestrians and drivers of cars
do. This is easily confirmed by looking into available accidents
statistiscs. So there is no need for experiments, controlled or
otherwise, which single out bicyclists.  Bicycle helmets are a dubious
solution to an imaginated problem.

--
      o      (    Wolfgan...@gmd.de          (+49 2241) 14-2394
     /\        *  GMD Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH
   _`\ `_<===     Schloss Birlinghoven,           | #include
__(_)/_(_)___.-._ D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany | <std.disclaimer>

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/28/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> So what. The relevant parameters don't vary that much, cars are
> similar, speed is similar, rules of the roads are similar and the
> distribution of driver types overlaps. Having just driven both in my
> home town and in Boston in short succession, I have a more solid base
> for an comparison of general drivers behaviour than you. And according
> to my judgement, traffic in Bonn is generally worse.

Maybe I should add some comments. Maybe I shouldn't but I will anyway.

I learnt to drive in London, UK. London driving is 'different' in many
ways, but after many tens of thousands of miles driving within 50 miles
of the centre of London (and many thousands in the centre) one is well
aware of the rules of the road. Not the traffic code, but the rules that
people drive by. And London traffic is extremely predictable.

I have driven in Boston, MA. I found it to be a little different to
London (especially when driving an automatic and being on the wrong side
of the car) but whilst the rules were different, after a very short time
one ceases to be surprised because you have learnt how to predict the
traffics movements.
Yes people are impatient. Yes people jump red lights, but you know this.
It is what they do. It is predictable.

As wella s driving in US (I went from Boston to upstate NY.. talk about
empty roads or what) I have also driven in Milan, many french towns, and
in Scandinavia. I have ridden by bike through Turin (Torino) the home of
Fiat on 6 or 8 lane roads and it is not a problem. Car drivers are at
least partly trained. They do have atleast a bit of a clue when it comes
to operating their vehicle, and their movements are somewhat restricted.

What I really did not like was when they closed the local park roads to
motor vehicles. Pedestrians. Argghhhhh..

Boston drivers may be bad, but at least they are predictably bad.

Now, driving in Korea is supposed to be quite an experience..

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bard Brors 7/28/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> Bicyclists need helmets no more than pedestrians and drivers of cars
> do. This is easily confirmed by looking into available accidents
> statistiscs. So there is no need for experiments, controlled or
> otherwise, which single out bicyclists. Bicycle helmets are a dubious
> solution to an imaginated problem.
>  
Unless you think that helmets are completely useless, what is the
"break-even" cost of a bicycle helmet, in your opinion?

Bard

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/28/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>...Just don't pretend that a helmet is a "safety measure"...

You're the pretender, not me, Wolfgang, as I shall demonstrate below.

>Anyway, please tell me what risks cyclist face around there which
>
> - are typical for Bostons traffic
> - preventable by and only by helmets.

1) 90% of bike accidents involve a car.  Urban environments
have more cars.  Boston is an urban environment.  Boston
therefore has more cars.  Boston therefore has more risk of
bike accidents per hour spent on the bike.  Most bike accidents
with a car involve either the car not yielding the right of way
to the bike, or the car turning in front of the bike without seeing
the rider.  Boston drivers are notorious for cutting people off
and for not looking where they're going.  In fact, they take a
perverse pride in this notoriety.

2) In 1996, 757 people died in bike accidents in the United
States (www.hwysafety.org/facts/bike.htm).  96% of those
killed were not wearing a helmet.  In 1993, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission completed a study of bicycle
safety in which, among other things, it was estimated that
13.4 percent of cyclists in the US wear helmets all the time,
4.2% more than half the time, and 6% less than half the time.
This works out to around about 18% of the riding population
wearing helmets at any given time.  So, if helmets are of no
use in preventing bicycle accident fatalities, we would expect
that 18% of fatal bike accidents involve a cyclist wearing a
helmet.  But the number is much lower, it is only 4%.  The
error due to finite sample size is only +/- 3.5 percentage points,
so a reasonable upper bound on this figure is 8%, still less than
half the 18% of bicycle fatalities we would expect to involve
helmeted cyclists if you are correct.  Of course, you're not correct,
as these figures clearly show.  The reference for helmet use
statistics is www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/bikestdy.pdf,
page 52.  We are now in a position to place a lower bound on
the fatality risk reduction from wearing a helmet.  The lower
bound is 100 * (1 - (0.08 * 0.82)/(0.18 * 0.92)) % = about 60%,
assuming the 8% number and not the 4% number, just to be
nice to you.  But it is more likely around an 80% reduction of
fatality risk, if we go strictly by the accident statistics as
reported.

[...]


>Bicyclists need helmets no more than pedestrians and drivers of cars
>do. This is easily confirmed by looking into available accidents
>statistiscs. So there is no need for experiments, controlled or
>otherwise, which single out bicyclists.  Bicycle helmets are a dubious
>solution to an imaginated problem.

I checked car and pedestrian accident statistics from 1996 and
confirmed that you are wrong.  From the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics web site (www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/chp3/tbl3x20.html),
we see that there are 166 injuries for every 100 million vehicle
miles driven, for passenger cars.  Assuming an average driving
speed of 50 mph, this is equivalent to almost exactly one injury
for every 12,000 hours driven.  Pedestrian statistics indicate
that, in my age group, the fatality rate in 1996 was 2 per 100,000
pedestrians (www.hwysafety.org/facts/peds.htm).  Let's assume
that the average pedestrian walks half an hour each day.  This
works out to about 180 hours a year.  So, 100,000 pedestrians
will spend 18 million hours walking in a year's time, and in that
time 2 die.  So the pedestrian fatality rate is 1 per 9 million
pedestrian hours.  Now, the injury rate is what we're after.  Well,
according to www.transact.org/mean/ch1.htm, there are about
20 times as many reported pedestrian injuries as there are fatalities.
Let's assume that reported injuries only make up 20% of the total
number of pedestrian injuries.  Let's also assume that I was wrong
and that pedestrians only walk 10 minutes a day on average, not
30.  Then the pedestrian accident rate is one every 30,000 hours.

Now let's look at your experience riding a bike.  I estimate that
you've ridden a total of maybe 7,500 hours in your life.  How many
times have you been injured in a crash?  At least once, correct?
Then your injury rate is already well above the US averages for
drivers and pedestrians.  Let H be the number of hours per injury
as either a driver or pedestrian.  Let N = 7,500 be the number of
hours you have ridden a bike in your life.  The probability of driving
these 7,500 hours without injury is P = 1 - exp(-N/H) (I can explain
this to you if you don't understand where this formula comes from),
so with H = 12,000, I get P = 0.39.  For pedestrians, H = 30,000,
so P = 0.22.  The same logic applies to me.  In my life, I've been
injured in a bike crash maybe half a dozen times.  Once I hit my
head hard, but was wearing a helmet.  Incidentally, this was not
in a race, but was caused by a car which drove past me so close
that it hit my handlebar with its passenger side rearview mirror.  And
it happened in Boston.  

So, in conclusion, I've shown two things in this little masterpiece:

1) Helmets reduce fatality risk by at least 60% in bike accidents.
Therefore, your claim that helmets are a "dubious solution to an
imaginated (sic) problem" is false.  They actually do help, even with
severe injury.

2) Your risk of injury as a cyclist is far greater than that as a
driver or pedestrian.  So your incessant repetition of the lie that
the reverse is true is particularly amusing in light of the facts,
when the facts are finally brought to light.  

I therefore conclude that you are a moron.  Have a nice day.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/28/98 12:00 AM
Bard Brors <Bard....@civil.sintef.no> wrote:

>Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>
>> Bicyclists need helmets no more than pedestrians and drivers of cars
>> do. This is easily confirmed by looking into available accidents
>> statistiscs. So there is no need for experiments, controlled or
>> otherwise, which single out bicyclists. Bicycle helmets are a dubious
>> solution to an imaginated problem.
>>  
>Unless you think that helmets are completely useless, what is the
>"break-even" cost of a bicycle helmet, in your opinion?

I have an answer to this one.  It has been estimated that bicycle
accident fatalities cost taxpayers in the US around $8 billion
annually (www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/bikestdy.pdf).  In the
same study, it was estimated that there are 67 million people in
the US who ride a bike.  This works out to $120 per capita per
annum.  From accident statistics, we can infer that helmet use
reduces fatality risk by 80%, lower bound 60%.  So the per capita
per annum taxpayer savings would be at least $72, more likely
close to $100, if everybody wore a helmet.  

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/28/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:

> 2) In 1996, 757 people died in bike accidents in the United
> States ().  96% of those

> killed were not wearing a helmet.  In 1993, the Consumer
> Product Safety Commission completed a study of bicycle
> safety in which, among other things, it was estimated that
> 13.4 percent of cyclists in the US wear helmets all the time,
> 4.2% more than half the time, and 6% less than half the time.
> This works out to around about 18% of the riding population
> wearing helmets at any given time.  So, if helmets are of no
> use in preventing bicycle accident fatalities, we would expect
> that 18% of fatal bike accidents involve a cyclist wearing a
> helmet.  But the number is much lower, it is only 4%.  The
> error due to finite sample size is only +/- 3.5 percentage points,
> so a reasonable upper bound on this figure is 8%, still less than
> half the 18% of bicycle fatalities we would expect to involve
> helmeted cyclists if you are correct.  

Hmm. Interesting analysis but you have missed something rather vital
that you haven't shown and the stats you have do not cover. It is a
major assumption on your part.
I'll let you sweat a bit till you can work out what it is.

And just to add to the number of figures, the standad deviation for the
number of deaths in US over a ten year period is somewhat over 7%.

 
> So, in conclusion, I've shown two things in this little masterpiece:
>
> 1) Helmets reduce fatality risk by at least 60% in bike accidents.
> Therefore, your claim that helmets are a "dubious solution to an
> imaginated (sic) problem" is false.  They actually do help, even with
> severe injury.

That is contrary to what is seen in New Zealand and in Australia. Maybe
there is something different between these two analyses that you have
missed? Actually there are many problems with doing an analysis like
yours.

 
> 2) Your risk of injury as a cyclist is far greater than that as a
> driver or pedestrian.  So your incessant repetition of the lie that
> the reverse is true is particularly amusing in light of the facts,
> when the facts are finally brought to light.

You missed something here too. Never mind, we can't all be perfect.
Your assumptions were also quite incredible. never mind.

 
> I therefore conclude that you are a moron.  Have a nice day.

And you dear boy take things a little too simply.

Work out what your assumptions are and you will see why your little
analysis is actually of no use because it is rather too simplistic.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/28/98 12:00 AM

Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>>...Just don't pretend that a helmet is a "safety measure"...
>
> You're the pretender, not me, Wolfgang, as I shall demonstrate below.
>
>>Anyway, please tell me what risks cyclist face around there which
>>
>> - are typical for Bostons traffic
>> - preventable by and only by helmets.
>
> 1) 90% of bike accidents involve a car.  

Bailey, you are pathetic. If you knew anything about cycling you'd know
that the most common "bike accident" in the US is a fall. Less than 20%
involve a motor vehicle. John Forester (Effective Cycling) has analyzed the
stats to death. Go learn something about the subject instead of posting
idiotic speculations.

... other similar nonsense deleted ....


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/28/98 12:00 AM

Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Bard Brors <Bard....@civil.sintef.no> wrote:
>
>>Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>
>>> Bicyclists need helmets no more than pedestrians and drivers of cars
>>> do. This is easily confirmed by looking into available accidents
>>> statistiscs. So there is no need for experiments, controlled or
>>> otherwise, which single out bicyclists. Bicycle helmets are a dubious
>>> solution to an imaginated problem.
>>>  
>>Unless you think that helmets are completely useless, what is the
>>"break-even" cost of a bicycle helmet, in your opinion?
>
> I have an answer to this one.  It has been estimated that bicycle
> accident fatalities cost taxpayers in the US around $8 billion
> annually (www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/bikestdy.pdf).  In the
> same study, it was estimated that there are 67 million people in
> the US who ride a bike.  This works out to $120 per capita per
> annum.  From accident statistics, we can infer that helmet use
> reduces fatality risk by 80%, lower bound 60%.  

Bailey you really are a twit. There are many jurisdictions in the world
which have had MHL for a number of years, notably Australia and New
Zealand. Please cite all the MHL jurisdictions where helmet use has
reduced fatality rates by 60% - 80%. Even 10%.

> So the per capita
> per annum taxpayer savings would be at least $72, more likely
> close to $100, if everybody wore a helmet.  
>
> --
> Dave Bailey
> dbail...@mindspring.com

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/28/98 12:00 AM
Bard Brors <Bard....@civil.sintef.no> wrote:

>Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>
>> Bicyclists need helmets no more than pedestrians and drivers of cars
>> do. This is easily confirmed by looking into available accidents
>> statistiscs. So there is no need for experiments, controlled or
>> otherwise, which single out bicyclists. Bicycle helmets are a dubious
>> solution to an imaginated problem.
>>  
>Unless you think that helmets are completely useless, what is the
>"break-even" cost of a bicycle helmet, in your opinion?

Incomplete data, can't answer that question.

For a competetive downhill cyclist with predictable accident patterns
fully within the narrow design limits of crash helmets, that break-even
cost might be well above the actuall cost. I don't know and I don't
care, though.  

For the typical urban utility cyclist riding competently in traffic, I
estimate that break-even point to be well below that of a pair of cheap
gloves.

For a person looking for measures which might enhance traffic safety
for cyclist, such a measure can't be computed, because promoting
bicycle helmets as practiced today doesn't enhance, but degrades
safety.

Given the canonical extension of your question, I'd answer: I'd
probably accept a payment of about two dollars per ride.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/28/98 12:00 AM
In article <35baf27d.389850@omega>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de wrote:

>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
>>No, Wolfgang, I said that you demanded that I tell you *why* I don't wear
>>a helmet while walking (or driving).
>
>No, Dave, I didn't demand anything. I just asked. If you like to tell
>everybody that you wear a helmet while bicycling, but don't do so while
>walking or driving, why shouldn't one ask about the reasoning behind
>this inconsistent behaviour? If you don't like to have your clothing
>habits discussed in public, why do you mention it at all?

It's because you've asked me about a dozen times, and I've answered each
time.  Then you've ridiculed my answer, and asked again the next time,
like some poorly-written computer program.  It gets very boring.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/28/98 12:00 AM
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>Bailey you really are a twit. There are many jurisdictions in the world
>which have had MHL for a number of years, notably Australia and New
>Zealand. Please cite all the MHL jurisdictions where helmet use has
>reduced fatality rates by 60% - 80%. Even 10%.

Excellent suggestion, Avery.  After reading your thoughtful post
I immediately found the following:

1) The existence of a mandatory helmet law does not mean that
everyone wears a helmet.  See, for example, www.bhsi.org/webdocs/
cal_law.htm
.

2) Victoria, Australia has a mandatory helmet law.  Before the
law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 36%.  After
the law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 73%.  In
the same period, hospitalizations for bicycle-related head injuries
decreased by 37%.  

Suppose there were N crashes involving potential head injury,
of which H required hospitalization before the helmet law was
passed.  Let the head injury risk from helmet use (relative to no
helmet use) be the quantity r, an unknown.  Then we have:

0.36 N r + 0.64 N = H          (before law)
0.73 N r + 0.27 N = 0.63 H  (after law)

First, we eliminate H by multiplying the top equation by 0.63 and
subtracting it from the bottom equation:

(0.36)(0.63) N r - 0.73 N r + (0.64)(0.63) N - 0.27 N = 0

N cancels from this equation, and we are left with:

r = ( (0.64)(0.63) - 0.27 ) / ( (0.36)(0.63) - 0.73 )

or, r = 0.26.  Thus, the use of a helmet reduces risk of severe
(i.e. requiring hospitalization) head injury by 74 %.  

Now, for fatalities.  According to www.bhsi.org/webdocs/henderso.htm,
Australian bicycle accident fatalities have decreased by about a
factor of two in a ten-year period including the ratification of
helmet legislation.  Before the helmet law was passed, and before
there were any community efforts to encourage use of helmets,
only 6% of people wore helmets.  After the law went into effect,
73% wore helmets.  Given that the fatality rate was cut in half,
we see that the 'r' factor for fatality is 2/7; i.e. the use of a
helmet reduces risk of death in a bike accident by 72%.  


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/28/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>>...Just don't pretend that a helmet is a "safety measure"...
>
>You're the pretender, not me, Wolfgang, as I shall demonstrate below.
>
>>Anyway, please tell me what risks cyclist face around there which
>>
>> - are typical for Bostons traffic
>> - preventable by and only by helmets.
>
>1) 90% of bike accidents involve a car.  

Certainly not.  Most bike accidents are falls, are single vehicle
accidents. If you are speaking about fatalities, please say so.


>Urban environments
>have more cars.  

Cars are driven more slowly in urban areas. Speed is the most important
factor in a car/bike collision, when assessing fatality risk.

Most fatalities where a car hit a bicylist are wide outside the design
limits of bicylce helmts. Bicycle helmets are designed for simple
falls, not for impacts from fast cars. Contrary to popular belief,
getting hit by a 35 mph car isn't comparable to a simple fall, but to
jumping from the roof of a two-story building.  The belief that less
than an inch of foam does give proper protection where >1m crush
section of a car, plus belt plus lots of foam often enough can't do is
futile.  

Do you believe that in urban environments, with their dense and slow
traffic, with their speed limits, drivers and passengers are completely
safe, because they utilitze safety measures thought for speeds three
times and impact energies an order of magnitude above that level? I
guess it.   Well, when looking up the relevant statistics, it took even
me with surprise that even when just looking at urban areas in Germany
(inside "geschlossene Ortschaft", where a generel speed limit of 50
applies, often even reduced to 30 km/h) only, where cycling and driving
compare to about 60% /10% share, where most drives are very short (less
than 5 km), where essentially nobody wears helmets, still more people
die inside cars than while riding a bicycle.  I posted the numbers
quite a while ago, but can dig them up again and give a complete quote,
if you like. Anyway, given your reasoning, drivers of cars certainly
need helmets for their protection.


Most accidents involving cars and bicycles occur at intersections and
in other similar situations (driveways, for example) where the
bicyclists speed does influence the probability, but only marginally
the _severity_ of the impact.   So if bicyclists need helmets, so do
pedestrians.


>Boston is an urban environment.  Boston
>therefore has more cars.  

Compared to what? Certainly not in comparison to other urban areas. You
where talking about Boston, wheren't you? Bonn certainly is an urban
environment, and has a lot more cars per area. Bicycling is
nevertheless quite safe without helmets, there.  

>Boston therefore has more risk of
>bike accidents per hour spent on the bike.  

Compared to what?

Anyway, thats a non sequitur.  


>Most bike accidents
>with a car involve either the car not yielding the right of way
>to the bike, or the car turning in front of the bike without seeing
>the rider.  Boston drivers are notorious for cutting people off
>and for not looking where they're going.  In fact, they take a
>perverse pride in this notoriety.

Funny. When I have to cross a four lane road here and step on the road,
drivers hit the gas pedal and honk.  We often had to cross a for lane
road during our stay in Boston, because public phones, a restaurant we
utilitzed for breakfast and a store all where located on the other side
of the road.

At first we tried to use traffic lights for pedestrians, but quickly
noticed that almost nobody does care about them (my youngest son still
is impressed and tells the story about a police car stopped and let us
pass, when we crossed the road facing a red light, after we
unscucessfully tried the pedestrians pushbutton for a while). Well,
later we just stepped on the road in front of our hotel, noticing that
oncoming drivers simply let us pass without making a great deal about
it, just by adjusting their speed. You won't experience that politeness
often around here.

>
>2) In 1996, 757 people died in bike accidents in the United
>States (www.hwysafety.org/facts/bike.htm).  96% of those
>killed were not wearing a helmet.  

In 1996, a few thousand people died in car accidents in Germany. 100%


of those killed were not wearing a helmet.


>In 1993, the Consumer
>Product Safety Commission

These are the people inventing the all reflector system, I presume, who
consider bicycle toys better not to be used in traffic or at night?


>completed a study of bicycle
>safety

Etc. etc.

Thank's for the many references. Well, there is more than a single
point in your interpretations which smells, ahem, a bit fishy. Anyway,
for the first time, you have included some real material which,
according to your interpretation seems to contradict what I wrote, in
addition to the usual share of name-calling.   Well, I reserve
judgement until I've actually read them.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/28/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>Hmm. Interesting analysis but you have missed something rather vital
>that you haven't shown and the stats you have do not cover. It is a
>major assumption on your part.

Sorry, I'm way ahead of you.  From www.bhsi.org/webdocs/henderso.htm:

"As discussed above, some critics have argued that statistical studies
are misleading because helmet wearers are more likely to be cautious
than non-wearers and are therefore less at risk of head injury.
However, in this British study there was no difference in the types of
accidents suffered by the two groups. It has also been argued that
cyclists who own a safety helmet are more aware of the risks of
cycling than those who do not. If helmet owners are safer riders than
non-owners, then in a study of this kind there would be fewer
injuries among cyclists who owned a helmet but were not wearing it at
the time of the collision. This variable was known. The authors report
that there was a similar rate of head injury observed among
non-wearing helmet owners and non-owners, and the rate of head injury
was much higher than for helmet wearers.  The authors also found no
difference between helmet wearers and non-wearers in the types of
injuries other than head injury that were sustained, or in the areas
of the body injured. All these findings, including data from different

nations, do not support claims either that helmeted cyclists are more
cautious or that they take more risks."

>> 1) Helmets reduce fatality risk by at least 60% in bike accidents.
>> Therefore, your claim that helmets are a "dubious solution to an
>> imaginated (sic) problem" is false.  They actually do help, even with
>> severe injury.
>
>That is contrary to what is seen in New Zealand and in Australia.

Not according to the reference I gave above, which includes figures
that suggest a 72% reduction in fatality risk.  See my other post.  

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/28/98 12:00 AM
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:

>Bailey, you are pathetic. If you knew anything about cycling you'd know
>that the most common "bike accident" in the US is a fall. Less than 20%
>involve a motor vehicle. John Forester (Effective Cycling) has analyzed the
>stats to death.

Avery, you ignorant slut.  Do you think I count insignificant
accidents such as that?  I consider an injury accident to be
one which requires medical treatment in an emergency room or
with a family physician.  This is consistent with my comparison with
car accident figures, which do the same.  Around 1 million people in
the US require medical treatment from bike accident injuries each
year.  Do you really think that people go to the hospital to have a
band-aid put on a scraped knee?


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/28/98 12:00 AM
cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:

>In article <35baf27d.389850@omega>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de wrote:

>>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>>
>>>No, Wolfgang, I said that you demanded that I tell you *why* I don't wear
>>>a helmet while walking (or driving).

>>No, Dave, I didn't demand anything. I just asked. If you like to tell
>>everybody that you wear a helmet while bicycling, but don't do so while
>>walking or driving, why shouldn't one ask about the reasoning behind
>>this inconsistent behaviour? If you don't like to have your clothing
>>habits discussed in public, why do you mention it at all?
>
>It's because you've asked me about a dozen times,

No, Dave. I didn't have to ask you.  It might have been a dozen times
that when I discussed about a helmets inconvenice with people who
somehow have made believe that I should wear a helmet, too, that you
stepped in and bluntly told me that you find your helmet convenient,
that a helmet wouldn't make my head feel hot, etc.

Well, after all these talks, I would't call you a helmet zealot, there
are many people who deserve this attribute much more than you do.

But you are certainly quite zealous in selectively defending people
promoting helmets with whatever arguments, aren't you?

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/28/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>Well, when looking up the relevant statistics, it took even
>me with surprise that even when just looking at urban areas in Germany
>(inside "geschlossene Ortschaft", where a generel speed limit of 50
>applies, often even reduced to 30 km/h) only, where cycling and driving
>compare to about 60% /10% share, where most drives are very short (less
>than 5 km), where essentially nobody wears helmets, still more people
>die inside cars than while riding a bicycle.  

Does everybody obey the speed limit in Germany?

>Most accidents involving cars and bicycles occur at intersections and
>in other similar situations (driveways, for example) where the
>bicyclists speed does influence the probability, but only marginally
>the _severity_ of the impact.  

Not in the US.  Most (68%) of the accidents involving a bike
and a car in 1996 occurred at nonintersection locations
(see www.nhtsa.gov/people/ncsa/Pedcy96.pdf).

>>Boston therefore has more risk of bike accidents per hour spent on the bike.  

>Compared to what?

Compared to a non-urban environment in the US.  65% of
bike accidents in the US in 1996 occurred in urban areas.

[...]


>We often had to cross a for lane road during our stay in
>Boston, because public phones, a restaurant we utilitzed
>for breakfast and a store all where located on the other side
>of the road.
>
>At first we tried to use traffic lights for pedestrians, but quickly
>noticed that almost nobody does care about them (my youngest son still
>is impressed and tells the story about a police car stopped and let us
>pass, when we crossed the road facing a red light, after we
>unscucessfully tried the pedestrians pushbutton for a while). Well,
>later we just stepped on the road in front of our hotel, noticing that
>oncoming drivers simply let us pass without making a great deal about
>it, just by adjusting their speed. You won't experience that politeness
>often around here.

Ahh, this is yet another characteristic of Boston traffic.
Pedestrians rule the streets in Boston, it is well known.  I am
not sure why this is the case, but I know for a fact that as a
pedestrian living in Cambridge for four years, I quickly learned
that there is no such thing as a red light.  I've seen people walk
out into the middle of traffic, forcing cars and buses to slam on
their brakes, and not even sparing so much as a glance to the
drivers, because they were in a hurry to get somewhere and
didn't want to be held up by something as silly as a four-lane
road full of cars driving at 35 mph.  It is so commonplace in
Boston that I think people just accept it as a fact of life.  But
cyclists are not given the same treatment.  For example, yesterday
on my way to work I went to make a left hand turn (on my bike)
behind a car as it passed me going the other way.  The guy saw
that I was getting ready to turn after he went past, then immediately
slowed down almost to a stop and said, "you think you own the
road?" - and I was on the other side!  Yet, no more than thirty
meters from the location of this incident, there's a crosswalk where
it would be perfectly legal for me to walk right out in front of this
guy and stand there for a little while.  "State Law - STOP for
pedestrians in crosswalk", it says.  

>Thank's for the many references. Well, there is more than a single
>point in your interpretations which smells, ahem, a bit fishy.

Yes, I'm waiting for you to say something about that, but be aware
that I intentionally left one point out of my analysis so as to bait
you into bringing it up.  

>Anyway, for the first time, you have included some real material which,
>according to your interpretation seems to contradict what I wrote, in
>addition to the usual share of name-calling.  

You're right, I feel bad for calling you a moron.  I apologize.  I'll
be nice to you if you be nice to me (i.e. not ridicule my cherished
alien abduction scenario, which was truly the work of an exceptional
mind, etc.).  I still love you.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/28/98 12:00 AM
In article <35c2f7e1...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
>>In article <35baf27d.389850@omega>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de wrote:
>
>>>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, Wolfgang, I said that you demanded that I tell you *why* I don't wear
>>>>a helmet while walking (or driving).
>
>>>No, Dave, I didn't demand anything. I just asked. If you like to tell
>>>everybody that you wear a helmet while bicycling, but don't do so while
>>>walking or driving, why shouldn't one ask about the reasoning behind
>>>this inconsistent behaviour? If you don't like to have your clothing
>>>habits discussed in public, why do you mention it at all?
>>
>>It's because you've asked me about a dozen times,
>
>No, Dave. I didn't have to ask you.

However, Wolfgang, you did.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/28/98 12:00 AM

Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) writes:
> ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>>Bailey you really are a twit. There are many jurisdictions in the world
>>which have had MHL for a number of years, notably Australia and New
>>Zealand. Please cite all the MHL jurisdictions where helmet use has
>>reduced fatality rates by 60% - 80%. Even 10%.
>
> Excellent suggestion, Avery.  After reading your thoughtful post
> I immediately found the following:
>
> 1) The existence of a mandatory helmet law does not mean that
> everyone wears a helmet.  See, for example, www.bhsi.org/webdocs/
> cal_law.htm.
>
> 2) Victoria, Australia has a mandatory helmet law.  Before the
> law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 36%.  After
> the law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 73%.  In
> the same period, hospitalizations for bicycle-related head injuries
> decreased by 37%.  

You really are a pillock. You omitted an important factor. Perhaps
because you haven't got a clue or you're not even aware of it, although
it has been posted on these newsgroups for Australia over and over again.
I'm not going to tell you what it is (yet). Go find out for yourself.


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/28/98 12:00 AM
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:

>You really are a pillock. You omitted an important factor.

Clearly, you are referring to the possibility that helmeted
riders are more cautious.  There are two reasons why I
believe this factor to be unimportant in the case I mentioned:

1) The increase in helmet use between 1990-91 was the
result of a mandatory helmet law.  This seriously weakens
the argument that the people who wear helmets are less likely to
suffer accidents, because it was the legislation which resulted in the
increased helmet use, not the prudence of the people themselves.

2) I'll quote this again from www.bhsi.org/webdocs/henderso.htm:

"As discussed above, some critics have argued that statistical studies
are misleading because helmet wearers are more likely to be cautious
than non-wearers and are therefore less at risk of head injury.
However, in this British study there was no difference in the types of
accidents suffered by the two groups. It has also been argued that
cyclists who own a safety helmet are more aware of the risks of
cycling than those who do not. If helmet owners are safer riders than
non-owners, then in a study of this kind there would be fewer injuries
among cyclists who owned a helmet but were not wearing it at the time
of the collision. This variable was known. The authors report that
there was a similar rate of head injury observed among non-wearing
helmet owners and non-owners, and the rate of head injury was much
higher than for helmet wearers.  The authors also found no difference
between helmet wearers and non-wearers in the types of injuries other
than head injury that were sustained, or in the areas of the body
injured. All these findings, including data from different nations, do
not support claims either that helmeted cyclists are more cautious
or that they take more risks."

I think it is likely that riders who wear helmets are also likely to
be more cautious and safety-conscious.  However, I am having
a hard time finding any data to support the notion that this has a
significant effect on injury and fatality rates.  Apparently, so are
you, which explains why you were so hesitant to be specific.  My
feeling is that about one in three to one in four fatal crashes
involving head injury are *not* preventable by wearing a helmet.
But the other two in three to three in four *are*, and this is why I
don't see what you are trying to accomplish by denying that helmets
are any good as a safety measure.  What exactly are you trying
to accomplish?

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Mike Dahmus 7/28/98 12:00 AM
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:57:28 GMT, dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave
Bailey) hired an infinite number of monkeys to write:

>ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>
>>You really are a pillock. You omitted an important factor.
>
>Clearly, you are referring to the possibility that helmeted
>riders are more cautious.  There are two reasons why I
>believe this factor to be unimportant in the case I mentioned:

I don't think that's what he was talking about. Here's a hint: How
many riders were counted before and after the law?

Mike Dahmus                             mdahmus at I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/  
"No one likes a pedantic smartarse..."

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dorre 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) wrote:

: ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
: >Bailey you really are a twit. There are many jurisdictions in the
world
: >which have had MHL for a number of years, notably Australia and New
: >Zealand. Please cite all the MHL jurisdictions where helmet use has
: >reduced fatality rates by 60% - 80%. Even 10%.

: Excellent suggestion, Avery.  After reading your thoughtful post
: 2) Victoria, Australia has a mandatory helmet law.  Before the

: law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 36%.  After
: the law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 73%.  In
: the same period, hospitalizations for bicycle-related head injuries
: decreased by 37%.

    That part is almost true (the offical estimates are for an increase
from
31% to 75% in helmet wearing), but the rest of his calculation is
wrong.  To understand why, it is necessary to look at the data over the
years before and after the helmet law.  A graph of numbers is on the web
at:
http://lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html#HeadInjuries
   Now tell me, Dave, which line is the head and which the non head
injuries? There were substantial falls in both.  So much so that it is
difficult to tell which is which.
   In fact, he biggest effect was not the relative fall in head
injuries,
but a fall in both, caused mainly by a reduction in cycling because of
the
law - scroll back a bit to see the counts of cyclists before and after
the
law.
   Now, for an other interesting point.  Over roughly the same period,
pedestrian fatalities fell by 42%.  This is even better than the 37%
fall in cyclist head injuries!!!  And this happend without forcing a
single pedestrian to wear a helmet, or discouraging a single pedestrian
from walking.  The reason was a crakdown on drink-driving and speeding.
  If you add together the benefits you might have expected from the
reduced speeding and drink driving, as well as the drop in injuries
because of reduced cycling, you find that cyclists were actually
worse off with the helmet law than might have been expected without it.
  So look at the data.  That shows you the true effect of the law.
Don't
blindly assume that because helmet laws were supposed to increase
helmet wearing, not discourage cycling, that was what actually happened.
In fact, according to the surveys in Melbourne, Victoria's largest city,
the decrease in numbers of cyclists was nearly 4 times larger than the
increase in numbers wearing helmets.
  Dorre

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>Of couse, there are people who generally judge pedestrian traffic to be
>inferiour to motorized traffic. From your paragraph above, I get the
>impression that you do, too. Am I guessing right?

I never drive in Boston just to do errands and such.  The subway
is much simpler and I can't handle the hassle of looking for parking
spots.

>Anyway, it was a running joke during our stay that we probably where the
>only people crossing this road on foot in our hotel, that people usually
>would cross the road by driving around the block, from one parking space
>to another, believing this to be "more safe", and so driving almost half
>a mile, just to avoid a 20 m walk.

Eeeehhh...  I don't know.  Certainly this is true in some parts of
California, but Boston has the T.

>The only two ways to attac this problem is education, driver education,
>bicyclist education, or, prefeably, both.

You know, I almost completely agree with you on this point.  
You're right, education will do a lot more to prevent fatal accidents
than helmets will.  And I would rather see federal money spent
in such a way than on promotion of helmets or mandatory helmet
laws.  But my only point has been that helmets are not an ineffective
safety measure.  I think there is a lot of evidence out there that
shows that they really do help.  Yes, I agree that educational
programs aimed at teaching drivers and cyclists how to deal with
each other safely and effectively should come before programs
aimed at getting everybody to wear their helmet.  

>>For example, yesterday
>>on my way to work I went to make a left hand turn (on my bike)
>>behind a car as it passed me going the other way.  The guy saw
>>that I was getting ready to turn after he went past, then immediately
>>slowed down almost to a stop and said, "you think you own the
>>road?" - and I was on the other side!  
>
>Did you educate this person about the rules of the road?

All I had time to do was yell, "Go!!!  Don't stop!!!".  Which
reminds me of a frequent situation I encounter, which is that
cars often stop to yield to me when they clearly have the right
of way.  I can't stand it, but it's clearly the result of
unpredictable behavior from cyclists around here.  

So, I agree with your main point, but not with how you make it.
I think that the proper response to people who seem to clutch
at helmets as the only way to improve rider safety would be to
ask them how they feel about educational programs as a potentially
more worthy investment of, for example, federal money.  I think
you will find that most people will agree with what you are saying,
and those who initially disagree won't feel as threatened as if you
launched the helmet-in-a-car line at them.  The helmet in a car
thing frames the issue in such a way as to suggest that helmets
don't help at all, and that that is your only point.  It seems like
what you are really saying is that educational programs are a
much better place to begin dealing with the problem, and this
seems completely sensible to me.  

>Now can we please stop talking about emotions? I reserve love
>strictly for my wife, sorry about that. :-}

I just feel a flood of good will overcoming me as I conclude this
post.  I feel the warmth of reconciliation, and the lightness of heart
that comes when a heavy burden is lifted from one's conscience.
I see us running toward each other across a field of daisies to
embrace like old friends and immediately begin chattering animatedly
about politics, history, good books and fine wine - in short, I feel
the love.  Let's face facts, I live alone and this computer's all I've
got - and she's faithful to me, except for when I try to type '%',
which sometimes results in the unexpected deletion of entire
paragraphs of my carefully constructed prose, but that's besides
the point.  Anyway, I have to get to work.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Dorre <drob...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
[I wrote]

>: 2) Victoria, Australia has a mandatory helmet law.  Before the
>: law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 36%.  After
>: the law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 73%.  In
>: the same period, hospitalizations for bicycle-related head injuries
>: decreased by 37%.
>
>    That part is almost true (the offical estimates are for an increase
>from 31% to 75% in helmet wearing), but the rest of his calculation is
>wrong.  To understand why, it is necessary to look at the data over the
>years before and after the helmet law.  

My primary reaction after reading your report is not to trust any of
the figures that come from the Australia studies, either supporting
or refuting the role of helmets in reducing risk of head injury.
There are too many contradictions between the various sources of
figures for me to be able to trust that the numbers are accurate and
that the studies were done in an even remotely scientific manner.
Were the rider counts made on the same day of the week?  This
wasn't reported, but it should have been.  Was any attempt made
to verify that the helmets observed actually fit the people wearing
them?  Of course not; this would be too time consuming, but it is
natural to expect that passage of a mandatory helmet law would
result in a lot of kids wearing a lot of ill-fitting helmets just to
satisfy the letter of the law.  This is actually a point of great
significance, because an ill-fitting helmet is probably worse than
none at all, especially on a child.  What kind of helmets were the
riders wearing?  Did they all comply with the safety standard, or
were many of them old, hollowed-out balls of polystyrene which
had never been tested against the standard?  Was any attempt
made to figure these things out?  I don't see any evidence that
there was, not in your study, and not in any of the other work related
to the Australia helmet law.  My conclusions are:

1) Yes, my calculation is not valid, because it uses unreliable
numbers which are clearly subject to many confounding factors,
the effects of which cannot be deduced from available data.

2) Yes, the MHL seems not to be effective in Australia, but no,
it cannot be inferred that properly fitted and properly worn
helmets do not reduce risk of head injury by a significant amount.

My only objective has been to show that bike helmets reduce
risk of head injury.  I am not a proponent of mandatory helmet
laws and I do not wish to get into an argument about them.  I
admit that the Australia statistics are puzzling, but have seen many
other studies on the web which purport to find that bike helmets
reduce risk of head injury by roughly the amount I originally stated.
None of these studies involves the introduction of a new helmet
law and the associated confounding factors which seem to
accompany it, so I trust their numbers considerably more than I
trust those of the Australia studies.  

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/29/98 12:00 AM

What a pathetic weasely-worded excuse for posting speculative garbage
which existed only in your over-imaginative mind.
Just admit you are completely out of your depth, and bow out.


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:

>What a pathetic weasely-worded excuse for posting speculative garbage
>which existed only in your over-imaginative mind.
>Just admit you are completely out of your depth, and bow out.

Avery, after reading your posts, one thing is clear to me:
If you could spend a day as me, you'd never want to go
back.  I think you are in love with me, and that secretly,
you want to be me.  You know that I'm superior to you
in every single way, "right down to sartorial acumen", as
a friend of mine once said.  You live and die by the attention
I give you.  You need me desperately, and hate yourself for
that.  This is the source of your rage.  

Have you ever seen those TV shows where the girl hates
the guy, then at some point realizes that she actually hates
herself for loving the guy?  That's you.  You're that girl.  Admit it.
You want to kiss me, don't you?

I forgive you, my poor, furry little friend.  Your fumbling
attempts at communicating your adoration of me are duly
noted.  

Your lord and master,

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tom Kunich 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Martin wrote:
>
> Dave Bailey wrote:
>
(Writes such an inane bunch of slop that there's no use quoting it.)

>
> And you dear boy take things a little too simply.
>
> Work out what your assumptions are and you will see why your little
> analysis is actually of no use because it is rather too simplistic.

And there is the problem that other estimates put helmet use at some
35% of the mileage covered which in Bailey's simplistic view would
give helmets a 35% chance of being in an accident.

Funny thing though: If helmets are used for some 35% of the mileage
in the USA why is it that the death rates over the last ten years
almost exactly matches pedestrians?

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Tom Kunich 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:
>
> Around 1 million people in the US require medical treatment from
> bike accident injuries each year.  Do you really think that people
> go to the hospital to have a band-aid put on a scraped knee?

Apparemtly since only a vanishingly small minority of the cases
are admited to the hospital for treatment. All the others are
treated as out patients.

In the military that was called goldbricking.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:
> Excellent suggestion, Avery.  After reading your thoughtful post
> I immediately found the following:
>
> 1) The existence of a mandatory helmet law does not mean that
> everyone wears a helmet.  See, for example, www.bhsi.org/webdocs/
> cal_law.htm.

Indeed. And there is something else stunningly obvious that you missed
too..
That, with a little bit more data that is available, will show your next
point to be false.


>
> 2) Victoria, Australia has a mandatory helmet law.  Before the
> law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 36%.  After
> the law went into effect, helmet use was estimated at 73%.  In
> the same period, hospitalizations for bicycle-related head injuries
> decreased by 37%.

> i.e. the use of a


> helmet reduces risk of death in a bike accident by 72%.

Ridership reduced by about the same proportion as head injuries.

so we start with 100N riders, having 100P injuries.
36N wear helmets, 64N dont.
after the helmet law we lose about 35N riders because they don't want to
wear a helmet.
so we have 36N with helmets, 29N without and 63P injuries

Hmm.. the difference in injuries (P/N) vs 63P/65N doesn't look very much
to me.

definitely not a 70% effective rate.

SOmebody is missing something here...

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:
>
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
> >Hmm. Interesting analysis but you have missed something rather vital
> >that you haven't shown and the stats you have do not cover. It is a
> >major assumption on your part.
>
> Sorry, I'm way ahead of you.  From www.bhsi.org/webdocs/henderso.htm:
>

That is only because you have your back to me and are heading in the
wrong direction.

Go back and look at the web ref you cited (hwysafety or somesuch). Look
at the other tables.

WHat do they tell you about using an average helmet wearing and an
average death rate?

(any more hints and I would really give the game away)

As for the Australian data, that has been adequately covered elsewhere
and your errors exposed.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:

>In article <35c2f7e1...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
>(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>
>>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:

>>>It's because you've asked me about a dozen times,

>>No, Dave. I didn't have to ask you.

>However, Wolfgang, you did.

About a dozen times, Dave?

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>Ridership reduced by about the same proportion as head injuries.

I concede that the Australian data can't be analyzed because it
is corrupted by too many confounding factors and too many unknowns.
It's interesting to me that you've clutched at this one piece of
unreliable work (unreliable in the sense that it shouldn't be
interprteted as saying anything about the effectiveness of bike
helmets), despite many other pieces of evidence which clearly
show that helmets help significantly.  

Here is the thing that really must piss you off:  Nothing you say
will change my mind.  I honestly don't care what you think because
by focusing on the shaky piece of non-evidence that you have,
you've demonstrated that you haven't thought deeply about the
issue.  And this, despite your apparently strong feelings about the
subject.

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>Go back and look at the web ref you cited (hwysafety or somesuch). Look
>at the other tables.
>
>WHat do they tell you about using an average helmet wearing and an
>average death rate?

In the data that I cited from 1996 in the US, the only other possible
cause for the discrepancy between fatalities among helmet and
non-helmet wearers is correlation between wearing a helmet and
reduced accident risk due to greater prudence on the part of the
helmet wearer.  This is a valid point and needs to be addressed.
In www.bhsi.org/webdocs/henderso.htm, it is stated that no such
correlation was found in several careful studies, however.  As for
"using an average helmet wearing and an average death rate",
do you really think my ego is so caught up in this silly little debate
that I'll actually go hunting around the web just to find out that
you're an idiot?  I have r.b.r. to show me that.  


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bob Cardone 7/29/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:


I think the bottom line is that most of these anti helmet people are
really insecure in their beliefs and will only feel comfortable when
everyone else agrees with them.  I was looking at a Bicycling Magazine
the other day and then at a copy of Bicyclist and then I watched a
program on cable on cycling and all I saw were helmeted riders. I then
received a cycling catalog in the mail full of pictures of helmeted
cyclists.  Then I went out for a ride around Stone Mountain in Atlanta
where many cyclists ride their bikes and  every rider I saw had a
helmet on.

Now either the anti helmet people are a few genius types in a world of
morons ( which I seriously doubt, reading some of their "logical
arguments"), or they are a group of fanatics hell bent on proving
their point regardless of the facts.

The sad part is that someone either not thinking clearly or not
thinking at all is liable to be swayed by their repetitive rantings
and ravings and go out and ride without a helmet and wind up with a
dent in his or her skull.  Of course, all these fanatics will not be
affected at all by this misfortune, and will go on ranting and raving
as if nothing happened.

Very sad.


Bob Cardone

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:
>
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
> >Ridership reduced by about the same proportion as head injuries.
>
> I concede that the Australian data can't be analyzed because it
> is corrupted by too many confounding factors and too many unknowns.
> It's interesting to me that you've clutched at this one piece of
> unreliable work (unreliable in the sense that it shouldn't be
> interprteted as saying anything about the effectiveness of bike
> helmets), despite many other pieces of evidence which clearly
> show that helmets help significantly.
That is where you are wrong. You interpret that in this particular
manner because of your preconceptions.
With the australian data we have counts pre and post law of cyclists
which are as accurate as are reasonably practical. We have counts of
helmet wearing. WE have national stats on death rates, injury rates and
so on.

Obviously these are compounded by other road safety measures but we can
make some judgement on those and include the relevant caveats.

Instead lets look at a different study. In this one they looked at all
cyclist injuries. They correlated injuries against type and looked at
the proportions. They did this over a period of years as the helmet
wearing rate increased from 20 to 80 percent (voluntarily).
This takes into account to a certain extent riding habits (and more so
than any other study).
They found no discernable change in the rate of serious head injuries.

 
> Here is the thing that really must piss you off:  Nothing you say
> will change my mind.  I honestly don't care what you think because
> by focusing on the shaky piece of non-evidence that you have,
> you've demonstrated that you haven't thought deeply about the
> issue.  And this, despite your apparently strong feelings about the
> subject.

Not at all. I have thought about it more deeply than your feeble
analyses indicate you have.
I have looked at a lot of the evidence. WHat have you looked at? Safe
Kids inc. leaflets?


You remind me of the man who went to see his doctor:
'Doc, I'm dead'
'No you're not'
'Yes I am'
'Ok, do dead men bleed if they are cut'
'no of course not'
cuts patient, patient bleeds
'Oh my goodness, dead men do bleed'

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Bob Cardone wrote:
<drivel on how 'everyone' wears helmets.>

I looked out of my office window. I can see people biking into the
university campus here.
Helmet wearing is at about 30-40%, typically by those who are wearing
the 'proper uniform' and are 'serious cyclists'. The real transportation
cyclists (yes wearing skirts, jeans etc and just going about their daily
lives by bike) have a much lower helmet wearing rate.

I suggest you come here and tell some of these vikings that they are
stupid.

As I have said before, wearing bike helmets is an american cultural
thing..

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Dave Bailey wrote:
>
> David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
> >Go back and look at the web ref you cited (hwysafety or somesuch). Look
> >at the other tables.
> >
> >WHat do they tell you about using an average helmet wearing and an
> >average death rate?
>
> In the data that I cited from 1996 in the US, the only other possible
> cause for the discrepancy between fatalities among helmet and
> non-helmet wearers is correlation between wearing a helmet and
> reduced accident risk due to greater prudence on the part of the
> helmet wearer.

You have failed to show that the risk of an accident across all types is
consistent with your populations.
Ie, there are no controls in this data. None whatsoever. If you think
the australian data was bad, then this is laughable.

Look at the tables for accidents on major and minor roads for adults and
kids. what are the mileages on which roads?
what sort of people wear helmets and what sort don't?
are the population on any road likely to be concordant with your
'average' helmet wearing?

The death data are skewed by so many factors that you have not taken
into account that it makes it laughable that you even attempt an
analysis.

Now, seeing as you claim to have many studies up your sleve which show
80% (or thereabouts) protection from a bike helmet, try citing them and
seeing whether they actually stand up to scrutiny.

The Thompson and Rivera study has already been discussed and shown to be
worthless in the scientific press.

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
cardone!@!mindspring.com (Bob Cardone) wrote:

>I think the bottom line is that most of these anti helmet people are
>really insecure in their beliefs and will only feel comfortable when
>everyone else agrees with them.  

Well, that's the typical response of somebody arguing from a religious
point of view. Confronted with scepticism, such people often project
their way of creating "belief" on to other people.

Face it, Bob, protective measures like air-bags, belts etc. aren't a
matter of "secure belief", but an engineering problem which needs
skills from both the physics and the mathematics department, i.e.
science, some scientific methods and results.   No belief is necessary.
Actually, such firm beliefs (like the firm belief in the merits of
helmets) get in the way of unbiased research, most of the time.

I might add that scaring people to death has been the most successfull
technique for promoting religious beliefs. The helmet cult isn't an
exception at all.  This is one of the reasons why I like to point out
that average people face most of their head injury risk when NOT
cycling. Contrary to popular belief, bicycling is not particularely
dangerous. People who drive without headgear actually _lower_ their
risk when cycling instead of driving.

Handing people a fetish for their relief might seem to work, on the
surface. But in reality, it just reinforces the superstition about the
dangers of bicycling.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>
>>Ridership reduced by about the same proportion as head injuries.
>
>I concede that the Australian data can't be analyzed because it
>is corrupted by too many confounding factors and too many unknowns.

Right. It just involved the whole population, so in order to do a
better controlled experiment, we are in dire need of a different
population, or better, even an entierely different world. Is it that
what you are hinting at, Dave?

>It's interesting to me that you've clutched at this one piece of
>unreliable work (unreliable in the sense that it shouldn't be
>interprteted as saying anything about the effectiveness of bike
>helmets),

It says something about helmet in the real world instead something
about an imaginary one. Well, you seem to prefer imaginated ones -
perhaps you ride an imaginary bicycle, too? :-/


>despite many other pieces of evidence which clearly
>show that helmets help significantly.  

What evidence? Contrary to what you wrote, the study you summarized
here doesn't provide evidence (it doesn't even claim to do so), but
just refers back to the infamous Seattle study of '89. Oh well.

All available evidence says that there is no way for a 1 inch piece of
foam to somehow perform better than 1 m crush zone plus belt plus foam.
All evidence from that whole population experiment says that any effect
a bicycle helmet could have is lost in the noise.

Now you are right that helmets help significantly in reducing minor
injuries - just like gloves do.  

>
>Here is the thing that really must piss you off:  Nothing you say
>will change my mind.  

Au contraire. That's just what I'd expected. Your are entangled in a
belief system. People arguing from a view of reason would say just the
opposite: all evidence point in this and that direction, but please try
to convince me that I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to change my mind
when shown a hole in my reasoning.


>I honestly don't care what you think because
>by focusing on the shaky piece of non-evidence that you have,
>you've demonstrated that you haven't thought deeply about the
>issue.  And this, despite your apparently strong feelings about the
>subject.

Projecting your beliefs, too, Dave? Wy don't leave that to Bob? I
believe (ha!) that Bob is a more firm believer than you are, he'll
easily outperform you on that terrain.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>With the australian data we have counts pre and post law of cyclists
>which are as accurate as are reasonably practical. We have counts of
>helmet wearing. WE have national stats on death rates, injury rates and
>so on.
>
>Obviously these are compounded by other road safety measures but we can
>make some judgement on those and include the relevant caveats.

The statistics are confounded by a lot more than other road
safety measures.  One thing is clear from the study:  for some
reason(s), the mandatory helmet law didn't help as much as
we might expect based on other evidence.  But I'm not in
favor of helmet laws anyway.

>Instead lets look at a different study. In this one they looked at all
>cyclist injuries. They correlated injuries against type and looked at
>the proportions. They did this over a period of years as the helmet
>wearing rate increased from 20 to 80 percent (voluntarily).
>This takes into account to a certain extent riding habits (and more so
>than any other study).

Does it say in the study what fraction of the people with head
injuries were wearing a helmet, and what fraction were not?
Does it compare this to the relative proportion of injuries to other
parts of the body?  What is the reference to this study?  Where
can I find these results?

>I have looked at a lot of the evidence.

If you're referring to the Australia data and this mysterious
"different study" as "evidence", I beg to differ.  No, I don't
beg.  I just plain differ.  The reason is that the Australia study
does not include any information about the fraction of kids
admitted to the hospital with head injuries who had and had
not been wearing properly fitted helmets that satisfied the
safety standard at the time of their accident.  As a direct
consequence of the mandatory helmet law, I would expect
many kids to be wearing helmets that don't fit and don't work -
hand-me-downs from parents and such.  So there is a greater
than normal chance that there is something lurking in this
missing information, something which was not accounted for
in the interpretation of the data.  

To see what I mean, consider the discrepancy between your
"evidence" and the following:

From www.bhsi.org/webdocs/henderso.htm:

"In one of the largest of the comparative studies, Maimaris et al
(1994) throughout 1992 collected data on all patients who attended the
emergency department of a Cambridge hospital following a bicycle
crash. [...] There was no significant difference found between helmet
wearers and non-wearers in the types of accidents in which they were
involved. [...]  There were no significant differences between the two
groups of cyclists with respect to the nature and site of injuries
sustained, except in the incidence of head injury. Head injury was
sustained by four out of 114 (4 per cent) of helmet wearers, compared
with 100 out of 928 (11 per cent) of non-wearers. The risk reduction
effect was therefore over 60 per cent. [...] These authors also found
that when helmet wearers sustained head injuries, they were less
severe. All the patients in the study with skull fractures and severe
brain injury, including the two deaths, had not been wearing helmets."
 
In order to refute this, you have to come up with a study which
includes whether or not the accident victims were wearing a helmet,
and fails to show any head injury risk reduction, relative to injury
to other parts of the body, as a result of wearing a helmet.  Do such
studies exist?  I doubt it; if they did, you and your fellow
scalliwags surely would have found them.  So as a result, you are
forced to go scurrying around in the shadows, digging up incomplete
work and repeatedly misinterpreting said work.  You should know
better.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>The death data are skewed by so many factors that you have not taken
>into account that it makes it laughable that you even attempt an
>analysis.

Sure, there are confounding factors, I'll admit that.  But do they
all add up constructively so as to cancel the perceived risk reduction
due to helmet use?  I don't see how they would.  You made some
vague hand-waving reference to different roads and people etc.  
Please outline for me the scenario you've concocted for yourself
wherein the fact that 96% of bicycle accident fatalities were not
wearing a helmet is reconciled with the fact that at least 18% of
US riders wear helmets.  

>Now, seeing as you claim to have many studies up your sleve which show
>80% (or thereabouts) protection from a bike helmet, try citing them and
>seeing whether they actually stand up to scrutiny.

Why don't you take a shot at the Cambridge study?  I'm sure you know
the one I mean - see my other post.  I'm interested to see what you
come up with for that one.  I'm fascinated with how you've contorted
your mind in order to believe what you do.

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
[I wrote]

>>I concede that the Australian data can't be analyzed because it
>>is corrupted by too many confounding factors and too many unknowns.
>
>Right. It just involved the whole population, so in order to do a
>better controlled experiment, we are in dire need of a different
>population, or better, even an entierely different world. Is it that
>what you are hinting at, Dave?

No, I'm stating (not hinting) that (1) the effect of the mandatory
helmet law on type and fit of helmets worn was not studied, and
(2) helmet statistics are not available for those people who
actually did have head injuries.  

>It says something about helmet in the real world instead something
>about an imaginary one. Well, you seem to prefer imaginated ones -
>perhaps you ride an imaginary bicycle, too? :-/

Let it go, Wolfgang.  Let it go.

>Your are entangled in a belief system.

No, I actually have firsthand experience with head injury
risk reduction from wearing a helmet.  The back of my head
hit the ground so hard I cracked my helmet practically in
half, but I just had a trace of a headache afterwards.  This
is a lot better than the concussion (or worse) that I surely
would have suffered without the helmet.  It seems to me that
it is you who are the "believer", since you've no experience
wearing a helmet but seem to feel quite strongly about them
all the same.  

>Projecting your beliefs, too, Dave? Wy don't leave that to Bob? I
>believe (ha!) that Bob is a more firm believer than you are,

What you've done here is make an insidious attempt to
turn me against Bob Cardone as a means of winning your
approval.  I'm not going for it.  Like me, Bob is a little
amazed at how emotional an issue this is for some of the
people on this thread.  You'd think some of you guys had
helmets regularly stuffed up your butts as children or
something, the way you respond to a guy who just says
helmets help protect his head.  


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
>>With the australian data we have counts pre and post law of cyclists
>>which are as accurate as are reasonably practical. We have counts of
>>helmet wearing. WE have national stats on death rates, injury rates and
>>so on.
>>
>>Obviously these are compounded by other road safety measures but we can
>>make some judgement on those and include the relevant caveats.
>
>The statistics are confounded by a lot more than other road
>safety measures.  One thing is clear from the study:  for some
>reason(s), the mandatory helmet law didn't help as much as
>we might expect based on other evidence.  But I'm not in
>favor of helmet laws anyway.

Unfortunately, voluntary helmet wearing has been shown to have no
measurable effect on severe injuries, too.  Well, that doesn't say that
protection against minor injuries is futile - but given the choice
between safety headgear and gloves, I prefer protection to the hands.
Hands are much more prone to injuries in a fall, and reasonably
protected hands might even prevent a few head injuries.

(Please don't interpret this as an attempt in gloves promotion. I
firmly believe the choice of clothing style to be an individual one).

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:

>Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>[I wrote]
>>>I concede that the Australian data can't be analyzed because it
>>>is corrupted by too many confounding factors and too many unknowns.
>>
>>Right. It just involved the whole population, so in order to do a
>>better controlled experiment, we are in dire need of a different
>>population, or better, even an entierely different world. Is it that
>>what you are hinting at, Dave?
>
>No, I'm stating (not hinting) that (1) the effect of the mandatory
>helmet law on type and fit of helmets worn was not studied,

Why should one study it? Do you imply that the standards are faulty? Do
you imply that the law was faulty?

Or don't you just not want to acknowledge that extrapolations from
exeriments with samples (controlled or otherwise) where proven to be
misleading, when trying to find the predicted effects when not just
looking at whoe the remedy works on a sample, but when applied to the
entire population?

>and
>(2) helmet statistics are not available for those people who
>actually did have head injuries.  

Again, what do you want? A different world, where different people use
different helmets in a different way?

If (for the an argument showing the naivity of your analysis) we assume
that helmets somehow work, but, for some reason or another, helmets
fail to show to have an effect,  because just those people who need
them most refuse to comply, but rather give up cycling, while those who
don't happily wear them - what do you intend to do, enact mandatory
bicyling laws, ensuring that the very same people ride before and after
the law??

Exactly how do you want to get the necessary control in a full
population experiment? I'm curious.

>
>>It says something about helmet in the real world instead something
>>about an imaginary one. Well, you seem to prefer imaginated ones -
>>perhaps you ride an imaginary bicycle, too? :-/
>
>Let it go, Wolfgang.  Let it go.

You invented that crazy scenario, so you now have to live with it.

>
>>Your are entangled in a belief system.
>
>No, I actually have firsthand experience with head injury
>risk reduction from wearing a helmet.  

I'd rather say you have firsthand experience with risk compensation.


>The back of my head
>hit the ground so hard I cracked my helmet practically in
>half,

See? Well, I've never worn a helmet in >30 years of bicycling. I've
fallen a lot, but never hit my head to the ground.

>but I just had a trace of a headache afterwards.  

So presumably your helmet spared you a somewhat heavier headache.
That's fine, but personally, I'd rather avoid the risk.


>This
>is a lot better than the concussion (or worse) that I surely
>would have suffered without the helmet.  

Please explain. Given that you only had a trace of a headache, it is
highly improbable that you'd have got a concussion. Acutally, you even
might not hit the ground at all, without that helmet.


>It seems to me that
>it is you who are the "believer", since you've no experience
>wearing a helmet but seem to feel quite strongly about them
>all the same.  

How cute.

It seems that you are quite new to these discussions, since you don't
know that I still own two helmets I (almost) religioiusly wore many
years ago.  You are not the first one to come up with that forseeable
argument, and it's not the first time I'm telling about.

Do you carry a rabbits foot, Dave, btw? Are those not having any first
hand experience with rabitt foots the true "believers"? I think not.
Just to the contrary, you just showed again that my "bicycle helmets
are the Bach flower remedies of traffic" hits the nail right on the
head.


>>Projecting your beliefs, too, Dave? Wy don't leave that to Bob? I
>>believe (ha!) that Bob is a more firm believer than you are,

>What you've done here is make an insidious attempt to
>turn me against Bob Cardone as a means of winning your
>approval.  

Not at all. I've got the impression that you both are arguing along the
same vector, so to speak, you complement each other quite well.


>I'm not going for it.  Like me, Bob is a little
>amazed at how emotional an issue this is for some of the
>people on this thread.  

Please show me any other area where a small group is selectively
threatened with a clothing code enforced by a discriminatory law, for
everyday activities. You won't find any, in civilized countries, if
there weren't these MHL for cyclists.

Do you really consider it just funny that people are threatened by
taking their medical coverage away, by taking their children away, by
aggressive talk like "if I hit you with my car und you werent wearing a
helmet, thats entierely your fault if you die"?  Just because they
refuse to apply a remedy which nobody else even thinks about using,
which just has been proven to be of indetectable worth after forcing it
upon a whole population of cyclists?

I've read all this here and elsewere, and no, it doesn't seem that
these people are kidding, it's just that they don't have the political
power to enforce their religious belief on us, so far.

Emotions won't help us, thats for sure. But your pretended suprise is
disgusting, my friend. I've seen people go up the wall for much minor
reasons, where it is much less clear where freedom lies. For example,
just try to take a gun away from an American, or try to talk about
speed limits with an average German. I suggest that you carry the gun
when talking to the German, or sit in a bullet-proof car when talking
to the other guy.

>You'd think some of you guys had
>helmets regularly stuffed up your butts as children or
>something, the way you respond to a guy who just says
>helmets help protect his head.  

When I started cycling, helmets wheren't even invented, people happily
cycled without. Actually, Snell wasn't an organization paving the road
to MHLs for cyclists, at that time, but the name of a racing driver who
died from a head injury he got in his car, because his helmet didn't
work.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/29/98 12:00 AM
In article <35be75f6...@news.mindspring.com>,

  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> My primary reaction after reading your report is not to trust any of
> the figures that come from the Australia studies, either supporting
> or refuting the role of helmets in reducing risk of head injury.
> There are too many contradictions between the various sources of
> figures for me to be able to trust that the numbers are accurate and
> that the studies were done in an even remotely scientific manner.

What you really mean is that you don't want to trust any figures that
refute your viewpoint don't you?

> 1) Yes, my calculation is not valid, because it uses unreliable
> numbers which are clearly subject to many confounding factors,
> the effects of which cannot be deduced from available data.

Excuse me, the numbers are reliable. The use that they were put
to by Henderson was unreliable because he was hired to write a
positive report on the helmet law effects. He simply didn't use
any information that didn't agree with that objective. Sort of
like you?

> 2) Yes, the MHL seems not to be effective in Australia, but no,
> it cannot be inferred that properly fitted and properly worn
> helmets do not reduce risk of head injury by a significant amount.

And yet the Scuffham study, done by an unreserved helmet promoter
showed almost precisely the same thing in New Zealand with VOLUNTARY
helmet use. over a 10 year period.

Moreover, in the USA it is claimed by several sources including, I think,
the Bicycle Safety Helmet Institute, that helmet use has reached 35%
or so. Yet when you graph the accident injury rate for bicyclists and
pedestrians over a 10 year period they almost perfectly match. If some
30 million helmet haven't had a measureable effect on the accident rates
perhaps we ought to just ignore their effects completely.

> My only objective has been to show that bike helmets reduce
> risk of head injury.

That is what is known as bias and you have used that bias to misinterpret
data simply to prove your point. Not very scientific don't you think?

The facts are pretty plain, the only studies that have shown positive
effects from helmet use seem to have been sponsored by the helmet industry
and the negative studies seem to be funded elsewhere. Quelle surprise.

But you really don't have to be really scientific in these studies. Bicycle
helmets have only been around for some 15 years from the start of their
marketing blitz to the present. How is it that there wasn't a problem
with head injuries before helmets and now that helmets are available you
would be a complete fool not to wear one?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/29/98 12:00 AM
In article <35befb0...@news.mindspring.com>,

  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Here is the thing that really must piss you off:  Nothing you say
> will change my mind.  I honestly don't care what you think because

> by focusing on the shaky piece of non-evidence that you have,
> you've demonstrated that you haven't thought deeply about the
> issue.  And this, despite your apparently strong feelings about the
> subject.

You mean the perfectly good evidence from experiences in Australia,
the figures from the study by Scuffham in New Zealand. The study
by Hillman Meyer in Great Britain, the figures from the various
states that have enacted mandatory helmet legislation, the figures
from the National Highway Safety Administration etc.

No, Dave, we know that you aren't going to change your mind and we
couldn't care less. We are just waiting for your other postings on
alien abductions proving that helmets are more important than proper
riding. Or maybe another homosexual comment towards Avery would set
our heart to beating faster. Or maybe not.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/29/98 12:00 AM
In article <35beff1b....@news.mindspring.com>,

  cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:
>
> The sad part is that someone either not thinking clearly or not
> thinking at all is liable to be swayed by their repetitive rantings
> and ravings and go out and ride without a helmet and wind up with a
> dent in his or her skull.

And here is the real problem with your position Bob. You think that the
world is composed of idiots who cannot control their own lives and
that they are just waiting to be led like sheep. You, sir, are proof
that there are fools of every age.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

>
> dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:
> >No, I'm stating (not hinting) that (1) the effect of the mandatory
> >helmet law on type and fit of helmets worn was not studied,
>
> Why should one study it? Do you imply that the standards are faulty? Do
> you imply that the law was faulty?

The law clearly didn't work.  Why?  Was it really that helmets
don't help?  Or was it that mandatory helmet laws cause more
problems than they solve?

> Or don't you just not want to acknowledge that extrapolations from
> exeriments with samples (controlled or otherwise) where proven to be
> misleading, when trying to find the predicted effects when not just
> looking at whoe the remedy works on a sample, but when applied to the
> entire population?

Are you sure you're looking at the same results I am?  I see
(1) two places where people stood around for a few hours and
counted helmets, then extrapolated these numbers to the rest
of the population, (2) one or two hospitals which counted
bicycle accident-related injuries, the numbers from which were
extrapolated to the whole population, and (3) no information
about head injuries among helmet vs. non-helmet wearers.  All
studies, whether you like them or not, necessarily extrapolate
numbers from a small subset of the population to the entire
population.  How could you have missed this?

> >and
> >(2) helmet statistics are not available for those people who
> >actually did have head injuries.
>
> Again, what do you want? A different world, where different people use
> different helmets in a different way?

No, I want something very simple, I want to see how likely one
is to suffer from a head injury while wearing a helmet, and I
want to compare this to how likely one is to suffer from a head
injury without wearing a helmet.  None - I repeat - none - of the
"studies" you and your brethren have quoted include these
statistics.  I wonder why?

> If (for the an argument showing the naivity of your analysis) we assume
> that helmets somehow work, but, for some reason or another, helmets
> fail to show to have an effect,  because just those people who need
> them most refuse to comply, but rather give up cycling, while those who
> don't happily wear them - what do you intend to do, enact mandatory
> bicyling laws, ensuring that the very same people ride before and after
> the law??

If it were up to me, there would be no mandatory helmet laws.

> >>It says something about helmet in the real world instead something
> >>about an imaginary one. Well, you seem to prefer imaginated ones -
> >>perhaps you ride an imaginary bicycle, too? :-/
> >
> >Let it go, Wolfgang.  Let it go.
>
> You invented that crazy scenario, so you now have to live with it.

God, you can be such a child.  And it's 'imagine', not 'imaginate'.

> See? Well, I've never worn a helmet in >30 years of bicycling. I've
> fallen a lot, but never hit my head to the ground.

So you've hit your head on the ground one less time than I have.
Congratulations, you must be very proud.

> >but I just had a trace of a headache afterwards.
>
> So presumably your helmet spared you a somewhat heavier headache.
> That's fine, but personally, I'd rather avoid the risk.

Wouldn't anyone?

> >This
> >is a lot better than the concussion (or worse) that I surely
> >would have suffered without the helmet.
>
> Please explain. Given that you only had a trace of a headache, it is
> highly improbable that you'd have got a concussion. Acutally, you even
> might not hit the ground at all, without that helmet.

No, I definitely would have hit the ground.  There was nothing
I could do.  Sometimes those kind of accidents happen.  It was
the closest I've ever come to getting anything worse than road
rash in a bike crash.  If you want more of an explanation,
consider that my neck muscles were sore for a few days from
my reaction to the fall, which was to try and keep my head
from hitting the ground.  But my momentum was so great that
it hardly made a bit of difference.  I've never hit the ground
that hard in my life, and I'm certainly not about to accept
your bullshit about "minor injury" in the face of my experience
in that incident.  

> Please show me any other area where a small group is selectively
> threatened with a clothing code enforced by a discriminatory law, for
> everyday activities. You won't find any, in civilized countries, if
> there weren't these MHL for cyclists.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not in favor of helmet laws,
so get off my back about it and stop confusing the issues.

Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
you on this point.

Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
you on this point.

Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
you on this point.

Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
you on this point.

Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
you on this point.

Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
you on this point.

Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
you on this point.

Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
you on this point.

Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
you on this point.

Do you get me?

--
Dave Bailey
dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Bailey <dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu> wrote:

>No, I want something very simple, I want to see how likely one
>is to suffer from a head injury while wearing a helmet, and I
>want to compare this to how likely one is to suffer from a head
>injury without wearing a helmet.  None - I repeat - none - of the
>"studies" you and your brethren have quoted include these
>statistics.  I wonder why?

Because there aren't statistics about just one.

Joking aside - please try to think about the definition of "one" in the
paragraph above, at least for a moment. Do you see the problem, or do I
really have to explain it?

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Bailey <dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu> wrote:

>Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

>> If (for the an argument showing the naivity of your analysis) we assume
>> that helmets somehow work, but, for some reason or another, helmets
>> fail to show to have an effect,  because just those people who need
>> them most refuse to comply, but rather give up cycling, while those who
>> don't happily wear them - what do you intend to do, enact mandatory
>> bicyling laws, ensuring that the very same people ride before and after
>> the law??

>If it were up to me, there would be no mandatory helmet laws.

As you might already know, voluntary worn helmets face the very same
problem. More more than doubling the helmet wearing rate in the whole
population by a heavy campaing, starting from an already very high
wearing rate, didn't show up in the rates of severe and fatal injuries,
either, in New Zealand.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/29/98 12:00 AM
In article <35bede9e...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
>>In article <35c2f7e1...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
>>(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>>
>>>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
>>>>It's because you've asked me about a dozen times,
>
>>>No, Dave. I didn't have to ask you.
>
>>However, Wolfgang, you did.
>
>About a dozen times, Dave?

You want the exact number?  I don't have the exact number.  I must be an
awful, worthless person.  But it was more than once.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/29/98 12:00 AM
In article <6pnco4$med$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <35beff1b....@news.mindspring.com>,
>  cardone!@!mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> The sad part is that someone either not thinking clearly or not
>> thinking at all is liable to be swayed by their repetitive rantings
>> and ravings and go out and ride without a helmet and wind up with a
>> dent in his or her skull.
>
>And here is the real problem with your position Bob. You think that the
>world is composed of idiots who cannot control their own lives and
>that they are just waiting to be led like sheep. You, sir, are proof
>that there are fools of every age.

Har!!!  This from Tom Kunich, who believes that everyone who wears a
helmet (except him) is a gullible sucker who thinks the helmet will save
his life if he is run over by a truck, and needs to have the realities
explained to him by much, much smarter people, like Tom Kunich.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Bailey <dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu> wrote:

>God, you can be such a child.  And it's 'imagine', not 'imaginate'.

Thanks, Dave. I'm always happy having the opportunity to improve my
skills wrinting in a foreign language.


>> See? Well, I've never worn a helmet in >30 years of bicycling. I've
>> fallen a lot, but never hit my head to the ground.

>So you've hit your head on the ground one less time than I have.

Certainly not. I know how it hurts. It's just that I hit my head not
while riding a bike. Haven't you ever gone through a fight with older
children, in the schoolyard?


>Congratulations, you must be very proud.

For what reason? In countries where there is at least a little bit of
"bicycling culture" left, children learn quickly how to protect their
heads in falls. That's nothing to write home about.

>
>> >but I just had a trace of a headache afterwards.
>>
>> So presumably your helmet spared you a somewhat heavier headache.
>> That's fine, but personally, I'd rather avoid the risk.

>Wouldn't anyone?

Obviously not. Didn't you just give an example to the contrary,
yourself?

>
>> >This
>> >is a lot better than the concussion (or worse) that I surely
>> >would have suffered without the helmet.
>>
>> Please explain. Given that you only had a trace of a headache, it is
>> highly improbable that you'd have got a concussion. Acutally, you even
>> might not hit the ground at all, without that helmet.

>No, I definitely would have hit the ground.  There was nothing
>I could do.  

What a fatalism. I pity you, really. When I injured myself the last
time in a fall, I quickly found out where I made a mistake.

Anyway, so I guess it could happen to you again and again?


>Sometimes those kind of accidents happen.  It was
>the closest I've ever come to getting anything worse than road
>rash in a bike crash.  If you want more of an explanation,
>consider that my neck muscles were sore for a few days from
>my reaction to the fall, which was to try and keep my head
>from hitting the ground.  

That's interesting indeed. From what height did you fall?


>But my momentum was so great that
>it hardly made a bit of difference.  I've never hit the ground
>that hard in my life, and I'm certainly not about to accept
>your bullshit about "minor injury" in the face of my experience
>in that incident.  

You are going to tell me that you wherent able to break a fall which
caused an impact that didn't even cause a concussion? Come on. If you
are really _that_ weak, perhaps you should indeed consider wearing a
helmet 24 hours a day. You risk your life each time you stumble.


>> Please show me any other area where a small group is selectively
>> threatened with a clothing code enforced by a discriminatory law, for
>> everyday activities. You won't find any, in civilized countries, if
>> there weren't these MHL for cyclists.

>As I've said repeatedly, I'm not in favor of helmet laws,
>so get off my back about it and stop confusing the issues.

Do these threats vanish without trace, just because you tell me
(fingers crossed) that you aren't in favor of helmet laws?  I applaud
that you do - but I've heard the phase "I'm not in favour of helmet
laws, but ...[insert your favorite insult]" much too often. Helmet
promotion paves the road to helmet laws, and all the sources you got
your carefully crafted propaganda material from are quite open in
following that strategy.


>Stop talking to me about mandatory helmet laws.  I agree with
>you on this point.

Fine. Most of the sources you got your material from unfortunately do
not.

>Do you get me?

Overpromotion of helmets (that's what you do here, currently) is the
most successfull way to MHLs. Do you get me? You won't get a vote on
MHLs, so what worth is your affirmation, anyway?  That biased material
you spread so happily here was crafted to mislead politicans, and is
quite successfull in doing so. There are enough people around demanding
MHLS, your help certainly isn't needed at all, here. But your help in
spreading promotional material, and by raising fear and doubt  is
certainly welcome.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:

>>>>>It's because you've asked me about a dozen times,
>>
>>>>No, Dave. I didn't have to ask you.
>>
>>>However, Wolfgang, you did.
>>
>>About a dozen times, Dave?
>
>You want the exact number?  

No, just answer the question.


>I don't have the exact number.  

I didn't ask about the exact number.

>I must be an
>awful, worthless person.  But it was more than once.

No. I might have asked why you don't wear a helmet that you already own
(because you wear it on the bicycle) when driving a car, a few times.

But most of the time, you just stepped in with an insult or a
misleading remark, when somebody else tried to convince _me_ to wear a
helmet on the bike, and I asked that person that question.

But if it makes you happy, feel free to consider you asked, too. You
still haven't given a reasonable answer, after all.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/29/98 12:00 AM
In article <35c35754...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>But if it makes you happy, feel free to consider you asked, too. You
>still haven't given a reasonable answer, after all.

I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer, you just didn't like it.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@my-dejanews.com 7/29/98 12:00 AM
In article <35bf45ce...@news.gmd.de>,

  Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
> David Bailey <dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >No, I want something very simple, I want to see how likely one
> >is to suffer from a head injury while wearing a helmet, and I
> >want to compare this to how likely one is to suffer from a head
> >injury without wearing a helmet.  None - I repeat - none - of the
> >"studies" you and your brethren have quoted include these
> >statistics.  I wonder why?
>
> Joking aside - please try to think about the definition of "one" in the
> paragraph above, at least for a moment. Do you see the problem, or do I
> really have to explain it?

Wolfgang, of course we've given him that answer several hundred times
but he just isn't listening nor reading.

We can count on going several lifetimes between serious accidents that
a helmet would possibly ameliorate (if they worked). The measured effect
of a helmet in serious head injury cases appears to be either zero or
a negative number. Therefore there is essentially no change in the
effects of a helmet to the statistics of injury to bicyclists.

On an individual basis the results still appears to be near zero but
since serious bicycling head injuries are so rare it's difficult to
judge and might be barely measureable.

In the San Francisco bay area helmet wearing is very much the norm and
a person without a helmet is generally considered odd. Yet there seems
to be no change in the accident statistics in the area. Could it be that
helmets just don't offer enough protection?

Let's make Casseres really safe by giving him a proper helmet designed
to accomplish what he says that all helmets presently do: prevent injuries
in a 30 mph collision with a car. It ought to take about 28 cubic feet of
polyurethane foam placed into a 6' diameter circle. This will give him
all the safety he thinks he needs.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
tku...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <35be75f6...@news.mindspring.com>,
>   dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > My primary reaction after reading your report is not to trust any of
> > the figures that come from the Australia studies...

> What you really mean is that you don't want to trust any figures that
> refute your viewpoint don't you?

No, I gave specific reasons why the figures can't be trusted.
You just don't accept them because they don't agree with your
viewpoint.

> Moreover, in the USA it is claimed by several sources including, I think,
> the Bicycle Safety Helmet Institute, that helmet use has reached 35%
> or so.

Then why is it that only 4% of bicycle accident fatalities in the USA
were wearing helmets?  Why is it that a Cambridge, UK study showed
ll% of non-helmeted riders with head injury, while only 4% of helmeted
riders suffered head injuries of some sort, even though the fraction
of riders with other sorts of injury was not significantly different
between helmeted and non-helmeted riders?  

Why are helmeted riders less likely to suffer head injuries, but
equally likely to suffer other sorts of injury?

Why, Tom?

Why?

> The facts are pretty plain, the only studies that have shown positive
> effects from helmet use seem to have been sponsored by the helmet industry
> and the negative studies seem to be funded elsewhere. Quelle surprise.

It's not enough merely to point to a study's funding source to
discredit the results.  You have to come up with a logical argument
based in fact, which you seem completely unable to do.  The fact
is, you haven't come up with a single original thought this entire
thread.  For example, in response to my questions above, you'll
harrumph and attempt to dismiss the findings with some vague blanket
statement without making any specific argument of any kind.  It's
utterly predictable, of course, because this is what you always do.
I've never seen you respond to a direct question with anything you've
thought up all by yourself.  I've never seen any of you helmet freaks
do this, as a matter of fact.  Simple, direct questions:  here are
some numbers, explain them.  If you believe them, explain why.  If
you don't believe them, explain why.  You can't do it.  You can't
do it because you stopped thinking about this thing a long time ago.
All you do is insist the same things over and over again and insult
those who disagree with you.  But all I want is for you to think.
Come up with a logical argument of some sort.  When I throw fatality
statistics at you combined with helmet use, have the brains to consider
the numbers by themselves, and attempt to identify why a straight
interpretation might be flawed.  Then we have a real argument, a
legitimate debate, something to talk about.  I'm not interested in
holding a serious discussion with you unless you're interested in
reciprocating.  If you choose not to take part, fine.  I'll go back
to making fun of you and your curmudgeonly net-persona.  It's all
the same to me.  


 
> How is it that there wasn't a problem with head injuries before
> helmets and now that helmets are available you would be a complete
> fool not to wear one?

80% of bicycle accident fatalities are caused by head injuries.  There
was always a problem with head injuries.

I don't think one is a fool not to wear a helmet.  I think it is a
matter of personal choice.  Why do you wear a helmet, Tom?  If they're
so ineffectual, why wear one?  

--
Dave Bailey
dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Martin 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Bailey wrote:
> Then why is it that only 4% of bicycle accident fatalities in the USA
> were wearing helmets?  Why is it that a Cambridge, UK study showed
> ll% of non-helmeted riders with head injury, while only 4% of helmeted
> riders suffered head injuries of some sort, even though the fraction
> of riders with other sorts of injury was not significantly different
> between helmeted and non-helmeted riders?
>
> Why are helmeted riders less likely to suffer head injuries, but
> equally likely to suffer other sorts of injury?

Cambridge is hardly a representative case. The majority of cyclists
there are students (and tey make up about half the population of the
town during term time). THose that are 'real cyclists' would be more
likely to be a) skilled and b) wearing a helmet wheras the 'only at
college' crew are typically appallingly skilled and rarely wore helmets
(at the time the study was being done.)
Skilled riders tend to fall better and generally be more active.
The hospital is Addenbrookes, on the outskirts of Cambridge.
Did they correlate the findings against alcohol consumption?
What were the aims of the people running the study?
Could the data have been interpreted differently if we had access to the
raw figures and reports?

THe answers are poor cross correlation of rider and accident types
especially at a time when helmet use was (still is) voluntary and was
generally restricted to the 'keen' cyclist.

Maybe not a satisfactory explaination in your eyes. But it does explain
some of the background to this particular study.

BTW the Transport research laboratory estimate a figure of head injury
prevention of 11% from all the studies performed till then, sometime in
1995. This study is however being reviewed and repeated on a semi
regular basis

..d

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/29/98 12:00 AM
David Martin <david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:
[stuff snipped]

>Maybe not a satisfactory explaination in your eyes. But it does explain
>some of the background to this particular study.

It was a good response and you made what I thought were
legitimate points that have to be considered carefully.  There's
not much more I can say since I don't have the data in front
of me.  


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Rick Denney 7/29/98 12:00 AM
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:21:52 +0000, David Martin
<david....@biotek.uio.no> wrote:

>Helmet wearing is at about 30-40%, typically by those who are wearing
>the 'proper uniform' and are 'serious cyclists'. The real transportation
>cyclists (yes wearing skirts, jeans etc and just going about their daily
>lives by bike) have a much lower helmet wearing rate.
>
>I suggest you come here and tell some of these vikings that they are
>stupid.
>

Speaking of Vikings and skirts, and purposely not speaking of helmets,
my observation of transportation-oriented riders during my recent
Denmark trip was that the descendents of Vikings wear skirts (at least
the female descendents), and they wear them so short that I confess I
was distracted from whether they wore helmets or not. The color of
their panties I can comment on: Black seemed to be the preferred, but
not universal, choice. Copenhagen may only get a month of Summer, but
what a month!

Now, back to your regular programming...


Rick Denney
Take what you want and leave the rest.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/29/98 12:00 AM
cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:

>In article <35c35754...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de


>(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>
>>But if it makes you happy, feel free to consider you asked, too. You
>>still haven't given a reasonable answer, after all.
>
>I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer, you just didn't like it.

Not so. You said something along the lines of "that's none of your
business".  But why you step in every time when I say that to other
people? Do you believe that my choice of a headgear is other peoples
business, just because I ride a bike? Or do you perhaps believe that it
is _your_ business how I get those people obsessed with our headgear
off my back?

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/29/98 12:00 AM
In article <35c7771c...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
>>In article <35c35754...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
>>(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>>
>>>But if it makes you happy, feel free to consider you asked, too. You
>>>still haven't given a reasonable answer, after all.
>>
>>I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer, you just didn't like it.
>
>Not so. You said something along the lines of "that's none of your
>business".

That was on one occasion.  On another occasion I said it was because the
inconvenience of wearing a helmet in a car was too great.  You then
demonstrated what a great expert you are on the topic of what is
convenient to me.

>But why you step in every time when I say that to other
>people?

To keep you entertained.

>Do you believe that my choice of a headgear is other peoples
>business, just because I ride a bike?

No, that's why I've never commented on your choice of headgear, although
you comment on everyone else's choice.

>Or do you perhaps believe that it
>is _your_ business how I get those people obsessed with our headgear
>off my back?

Yes, since you do that in newsgroups that I read, and irritate me by your
ceaseless repetition of the same irrelevant rhetorical question.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/29/98 12:00 AM
In article <6pnons$6pp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>We can count on going several lifetimes between serious accidents that
>a helmet would possibly ameliorate (if they worked). The measured effect
>of a helmet in serious head injury cases appears to be either zero or
>a negative number. Therefore there is essentially no change in the
>effects of a helmet to the statistics of injury to bicyclists.
>
>On an individual basis the results still appears to be near zero but
>since serious bicycling head injuries are so rare it's difficult to
>judge and might be barely measureable.

What a bizarre statement!  What results are you talking about?  The result
of helmnet use for an individual are seen only if that individual has an
accident while wearing a helmet, and then you have to decide, without
clear evidence, whether the helmet helped or not.  What do you mean by
"barely measurable"?  What would you measure?

>Let's make Casseres really safe by giving him a proper helmet designed
>to accomplish what he says that all helmets presently do: prevent injuries
>in a 30 mph collision with a car. It ought to take about 28 cubic feet of
>polyurethane foam placed into a 6' diameter circle. This will give him
>all the safety he thinks he needs.

And someone wondered why I called you a liar!  I have never made any such
claim.  How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Stergios Papadakis 7/29/98 12:00 AM

Bob Cardone wrote:

> I think the bottom line is that most of these anti helmet people are
> really insecure in their beliefs and will only feel comfortable when
> everyone else agrees with them.  I was looking at a Bicycling Magazine
> the other day and then at a copy of Bicyclist and then I watched a
> program on cable on cycling and all I saw were helmeted riders. I then
> received a cycling catalog in the mail full of pictures of helmeted
> cyclists.  Then I went out for a ride around Stone Mountain in Atlanta
> where many cyclists ride their bikes and  every rider I saw had a
> helmet on.
>
> Now either the anti helmet people are a few genius types in a world of
> morons ( which I seriously doubt, reading some of their "logical
> arguments"), or they are a group of fanatics hell bent on proving
> their point regardless of the facts.
>
> <sad part snipped>

> Very sad.
>
> Bob Cardone

  I look at the paths and streets here at my university and very few of
the people who use bicycles as transportation wear helmets.  And this is
central NJ, in the USA.
Perhaps the magazines and catalogs all show pictures of helmeted riders
because the helmet companies are doing a great job of marketing, and your
Stone Mtn. riding buddies are just as susceptible to the marketing as
everyone else.  The message is out: "you can't be a real cyclist if you
don't have a $120 helmet!"  The students around here don't give a rat's
ass about being "real cyclists" so they simply get on their bikes and
ride.  No helmets, no special shoes, no gloves, no jerseys, etc.


Many on this newsgroup agree that marketing plays a huge role in people's
decisions.  The primary example cited is the SUV craze.  The companies
promote SUVs heavily and people buy them.  Some say the auto companies are
responding to consumer's wishes, but I don't think so:  the companies like
selling SUVs because they are cheaper to make than regular cars, because
SUVs don't have to meet the strict saftey standards that cars do.  They
promote the vehicles that they make the biggest profit on, and the public
falls for it.

But anyway, do you not think that cyclists can be swayed by helmet
marketing just as auto buyers can be swayed by SUV marketing?

Stergios

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti Bill Zaumen 7/30/98 12:00 AM
In article 41C6...@juliet.ll.mit.edu, David Bailey <dav...@juliet.ll.mit.edu> writes:
> tku...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <35be75f6...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >   dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >
> > > My primary reaction after reading your report is not to trust any of
> > > the figures that come from the Australia studies...
> > What you really mean is that you don't want to trust any figures that
> > refute your viewpoint don't you?
>
> No, I gave specific reasons why the figures can't be trusted.
> You just don't accept them because they don't agree with your
> viewpoint.
>

David, the "discussion" has been going on for years, and you will make
no progress with these guys.  Interestingly, they complain about one
study that showed positive results for helmet use because of "self selection".
Yet, with regard to the Australian study, they also  claim the helmet laws
caused a significant reduction in the number of cyclists.  Well, that
makes the population after the helmet law went into effect equally
self selected!  Yet, that type of "self selection" is completely ignored.

I mean, you get a bunch of rebellious Austrailian teenagers who refuse
to ride with a helmet and stop cycling (being at an age where most
want to drive anyway), and teenagers typically are a big chunk of
accident statistics.  Then you get the ones who cycle anyway,
presumably because they like cycling more than they dislike helmets.
Are the ones still cycling more or less risk taking than the one's that
dropped out?  Well, I don't know and I don't think the Aussies know
either, even the Aussie-ette who wrote up this highly touted study.
The sensible conclusion is not to trust this study, but hey, this is
usenet, and people with an anti-helmet axe to grind just grind away :-).

I'd suggest in general trying to edit the "newsgroup" header to restrict
the discussion to rec.bicycles.soc, since it has little to do with the
other groups, but most of my attempts to do that don't seem to prevent
the spillover, so more people are going to have to help if that is what
the others want.  Unfortunately, I can't say that and reach everyone
without making a one-time exception to the rule...sorry about that.

Enjoy,

Bill

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/30/98 12:00 AM
tku...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[deleted]

Sorry, you are not worth my time.  I have other things
I can do, like take a crap.


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 7/30/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

[deleted]

Sorry, I promised myself I wouldn't waste any more time
on you.  Goodbye.

--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/30/98 12:00 AM

Dave Bailey (dbail...@mindspring.com) writes:
> tku...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> [deleted]
>
> Sorry, you are not worth my time.  I have other things
> I can do, like take a crap.
>

Your were rather boring so you won't be missed, but you might have got a
little more respect if you hadn't started off with this line way back:

>>> .....  It just pisses me off to see such idiotic arguments *against*
>>> wearing a helmet.
 
Your arguments have now been exposed as "idiotic" and without foundation
so don't whine over getting responses similar in tone to yours.
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dorre 7/30/98 12:00 AM
David Bailey wrote:
> Then why is it that only 4% of bicycle accident fatalities in the USA
> were wearing helmets?  

    My guess is that only 4% were KNOWN to have been wearing
helmets.  Two other posters have reported fatalities for Ontario
and California (I didn't save the posts - can you email me the
data, please, posters?) but in one case only ONE cyclist was
definitely NOT wearing a helmet.  In both cases, more than
half the fatalities were helmeted.  This is a bit different to
your 4%. In Australia, approximately 80% of fatalities are helmeted.
All police attenting road accidents have a form to fill in which
specifically asks whether a helmet was worn.  Even then you still get a
few unknowns.
   Are police in every state in the US required to fill in a similar
form?  If not, you can bet your bottom dollar that the information
on helmet wearing wasn't collected and that someone is assuming that
because helmet wearing was reported, it didn't happen.  

> Why is it that a Cambridge, UK study showed
> ll% of non-helmeted riders with head injury, while only 4% of helmeted
> riders suffered head injuries of some sort, even though the fraction
> of riders with other sorts of injury was not significantly different
> between helmeted and non-helmeted riders?

   The helmeted riders in the Cambridge study were different to the
non helmeted riders.  Children under 16 were twice as likely to wear
helmets as older riders.  Helmeted riders were more likely to have
suffered bike only falls, compared with other types of accidents.
   Interestingly, one poster who lived in Cambridge at the time thought
that helmet wearing was much lower than 11% - perhaps only 3 or 4% from
his counts.  If true, then the head injury rate would be little
different from the helmet wearing rate.
   The first Seattle helmet wearing paper ended up with pretty similar
results.  Despite their estimate of an 85% reduction in head injury,
a major contemporaneous survey of thousands of cyclists round Seattle
found helmet wearings was no different from the percentage helmet
wearing in cyclists receiving treatment at the 7 or 8 hospitals
participating in the study.  Interesting!
    Other studies have found much higher head injury rates in helmeted
cyclists than the Cambridge study.  For example, McDermott's study in
Victoria, Aus, which involved more than three times as many helmeted
cyclists than the Cambridge study,  found that 29% of helmeted cyclists
aged 18 or above had head injuries.  For that age group, the estimated
reduction in head injury was less than 25%, and part of that was
probably due to time trends as seen in motorist head injury rates.
   Let's face it, when you have less than 3 or 4% of cyclists wearing
helmets (as in the first Seattle study, and it would appear in the study
in Cambridge, UK) there is probably something atypical about those
cyclists. It's very hard to make statistical adjustments for all the
differences in the two populations.
   The other Australian study, in Brisbane Qld, which checked whether
the cyclists were wearing helmets (Thomas et al.) found head injury
rates were 40% lower in kids wearing helmets.  These involved mainly
bike only accidents, the sort of accidents in which helmets might help,
and obviously included road rash to the head.  In this case helmeted
riders tended to be in more severe accidents, and there were interesting
differences according to hospital.   20.1% of kids attending the
emergency dept at one hospital had head injuries, 36.5% at the other.
   In both cases, collision with motor vehcicles had a big effect.  63%
of the kids in the 2nd study involved in collision with vehicles had
head injuries.  In the Cambridge study, half of all head injuries and
58% of head injuries to cyclists aged 16 and over happened as a result
of bike/vehicle collisons.
   If the authorities could forget about helmets and find ways of
reducing impact speed in bike/vehicle collsions, or better still find
ways of preventing those collisions, head injuries to cyclists would
reduce a hell of a lot more than by encouraging cyclists to wear
helmets!  
   And for cyclists, you'll almost certainly reduce your risk of head
injury much more by choosing routes you consider safe and avoiding the
dangerous ones, tban by wearing a helmet.  I hope most cyclists will
always have this choice!
   Dorre

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dorre 7/30/98 12:00 AM
David Bailey wrote:
> Are you sure you're looking at the same results I am?  I see
> (1) two places where people stood around for a few hours and
> counted helmets, then extrapolated these numbers to the rest
> of the population,

    Not true.  The surveys were major surveys, involving thousands of
hours of observation.  The Victorian survey involved 64 sites, each
counted for 10 hours, 5 hours on a weekday, 5 on a weekend.  Repeats
were conducted at the same time of year, with the same sites and time
periods and where possbile the same observers.
    In New South Wales, sites were also stratified into recreational,
road intersection or near schools, and in metropolitan, inner rural and
regional centres.  The results for all groups were similar.

(2) one or two hospitals which counted
> bicycle accident-related injuries, the numbers from which were
> extrapolated to the whole population, and (3) no information
> about head injuries among helmet vs. non-helmet wearers.  All
> studies, whether you like them or not, necessarily extrapolate
> numbers from a small subset of the population to the entire
> population.  How could you have missed this?

    There is a central, computerized system for all hospitals in a
state.  Virtually every bike accident requiring hospitalization would
have been included.   I have data for 5 separate states.  They all show
the same thing, or rather they don't show it (ie the effect of helmet
laws and massive increases in helmet wearing on head injuries!)

   As for the argument about hand-me-down helmets, it isn't plausible.
There weren't all that many cyclists wearing helmets pre-law, so where
would these helmets have come from?  Most cyclists who didn't have
helmets pre law would have had to buy them new.

   I think the data show conclusively that helmet laws don't work.  The
same is probably true for promotion of helmets.  They also show that the
benefits of helmets have been over-estimated.  The explanation for this
is unclear and needs futher resarch. It may be that the reduction of
cyclists on the roads decreased motorist awareness of cyclists and so
increased car/bike accidents, which would automatically increase the
risk of head injury over and above other injuries.  Cyclists may also
have felt more protected and taken marginally more risks, which could
also have increased accident severity and hence the risk of head
injury.  It also looks as if most serious brain injuries involve
rotational injury, which helmets may worsen and certainly don't
prevent.  Or maybe it is just that the benefits of helmets are
sufficiently small that they don't show up in the data, even when you
increase helmet wearing from 31 to 75%

   Unfortunately, while people are so infatuated with helmets that they
report reductions in head injury from helmet laws as if they were due to
helmets, being careful not to report the massive reduction in cycling
with the laws, the necessary research will never happen.
 
   Until we can put helmets in context with other safety measures,
cyclists will always get the thin end of the wedge.  Safety for
motorists will mean spending billions on new roads, especially those
less safe for cyclists, preventing accident blackspots and research into
safe driving.  Safety for cyclists will mean helmet laws.

   All helmet promoters should think about this.  If you wear a helmet
yourself, that's your choice and no-one would want you to do otherwise.
But it's a short step from telling other people they should wear helmets
to politicians getting hold of this idea and then making it compulsory.
And if that happens, both helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists will be worse
off.
   Dorre

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 7/30/98 12:00 AM
cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:

>In article <35c7771c...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
>(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>>Do you believe that my choice of a headgear is other peoples
>>business, just because I ride a bike?

>No, that's why I've never commented on your choice of headgear, although
>you comment on everyone else's choice.

Please don't evade the question. Why do you step in so often, in
support of people trying to lecture me about my headgear?  

>>Or do you perhaps believe that it
>>is _your_ business how I get those people obsessed with our headgear
>>off my back?
>
>Yes, since you do that in newsgroups that I read, and irritate me by your
>ceaseless repetition of the same irrelevant rhetorical question.

Thats an exposing answer indeed. You seem to be quite selective in what
you consider irritating.  I'ts not just that bicycle helmets don't make
you feal inconvenient (contrary to, for example, car helmets), the very
same obviously applies to pro-helmet propaganda, too.   There is a lot
of irrelevant pro-helmet propaganda floating around, which gets
mindlessly repeated again and again, not irritating you in any way. But
each and every time anyone speaks up against this cult with a bit of
skepticism, you counter by uttering about your irritation.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jack Dingler 7/30/98 12:00 AM
David Casseres wrote:
>
> In article <35B2B5...@onramp.net>, jdin...@onramp.net wrote:
>
> >I wear a helmet most of the time.  I ride in the 100+f temperatures
> >everyday, so I'm somewhat acclimated to it.  Still, I ride a fine line
> >between speed and heat.  Today, I got dizzy for a moment, at the end of
> >a thirty mile ride, with a few hours of rock climbing.  For just a
> >second, I lost control over my balance and found that my belly button
> >was riding on my brake hood.  This was the only indication I had, that
> >the heat was getting to me.  I got my bike back under control and didn't
> >crash.  The thought of that near face plant, is frightening still.  Even
> >now, I have no recollection of what really happened beyond the feeling
> >of weakness and the panic to regain control.
> >
> >This begs some questions...
> >1. Would this have happened if the helmet hadn't been helping my head
> >retain heat?
>
> I'll refrain from giving your "my helmet almost killed me" story the
> treatment that is usually given to "my helmet saved my life" stories.  But
> I will ask whether you're sure your head would have been significantly
> cooler without a helmet, while in motion.  My own experience is it makes
> no difference until I stop.

I can feel the difference.

> >2. I know, that had I gone down, I would've landed on my face.  Would a
> >helmet have saved me from injuries?
> >3. Should I consider not wearing a helmet on dangerously hot days?
> >
> >I'm considering number 3.  I don't ride in the extremely unsafe
> >conditions that many other riders do.  I don't crash a lot.  I don't get
> >doored twice a week.  I don't get hit by cars often.  I don't do deep
> >steep descents at high speeds down twisty mountian slopes in the rain.
> >In fact, my cycling falls have been rare events and I've never hit my
> >head.  I used to crash a lot on motorcycles, but still, I never
> >scratched a helmet then, either.
> >
> >If a helmet is going to increase my odds of passing out, and crashing,
> >then why should I wear one?
>
> I'm having a hard time imagining why you've worn one for this long.  The
> risk of being ticketed for violation of the helmet law is minimal, and
> even if you were ticketed it seems like the price would be a small one to
> pay for added comfort and safety.

The fine is only $500 US.  Whether this is small or not, is a bit
relative.

My wife prefers that I wear a helmet.

> >Now I know, that some posters have insisted, the heat related
> >difficulties are a myth.  That no one can die from heat exposure.  I
> >don't know where they get there information from, but evidently, they've
> >led sheltered lives.
>
> Don't know who you mean -- I've only seen posts like my own, which just
> point out that *not everyone* is highly susceptible to heat.


>
> --
> David Casseres
> Exclaimer: Hey!

I don't know of anyone that can't die from heat exposure.

Jack Dingler

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 7/30/98 12:00 AM
In article <35c33897...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
>
>>In article <35c7771c...@news.gmd.de>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de
>>(Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:
>
>>>Do you believe that my choice of a headgear is other peoples
>>>business, just because I ride a bike?
>
>>No, that's why I've never commented on your choice of headgear, although
>>you comment on everyone else's choice.
>
>Please don't evade the question. Why do you step in so often, in
>support of people trying to lecture me about my headgear?  

I've never supported anyone attacking you about headgear.  All I've done
is challenge (and make fun of) your absurd repetition of "then why don't
you wear a helmet in the car?".

>>>Or do you perhaps believe that it
>>>is _your_ business how I get those people obsessed with our headgear
>>>off my back?
>>
>>Yes, since you do that in newsgroups that I read, and irritate me by your
>>ceaseless repetition of the same irrelevant rhetorical question.
>
>Thats an exposing answer indeed. You seem to be quite selective in what
>you consider irritating.

Why yes, I am not so easily irritated.

>I'ts not just that bicycle helmets don't make
>you feal inconvenient (contrary to, for example, car helmets), the very
>same obviously applies to pro-helmet propaganda, too.  There is a lot
>of irrelevant pro-helmet propaganda floating around, which gets
>mindlessly repeated again and again, not irritating you in any way. But
>each and every time anyone speaks up against this cult with a bit of
>skepticism, you counter by uttering about your irritation.

The great majority of the pro-helmet propaganda comes from net.fools who
post once and are never heard from again.  It is not worth attacking.  As
for the very few people who consistently post ill-informed pro-helmet
statements, I feel that they are well taken care of by you, Avery, Tom,
Frank, and some others, and do not require my attention.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots Wolfgang Strobl 7/30/98 12:00 AM
cardone!@!mindspring.com (Bob Cardone) wrote:

>When do you have time to ride. With the frequency of your meaningless
>posts one would figure that you spend about  8 to 10 hours a day stuck
>in front of your PC trying to think of something semi logical to spew.

I am not impressed.

Could it be that Avery not only is a more avid rider than you, but a
better touch typist (and more skilled writer), too? I think so.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Ryan Hare 7/30/98 12:00 AM
Dorre (drob...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
:    Let's face it, when you have less than 3 or 4% of cyclists wearing

: helmets (as in the first Seattle study, and it would appear in the study
: in Cambridge, UK) there is probably something atypical about those
: cyclists. It's very hard to make statistical adjustments for all the
: differences in the two populations.

As a resident of Seattle, and an avid cyclist, the statistic that 3 or 4%
of cyclists in Seattle wear helmets is WAY wrong. I've no idea what the
actual number is, but something like 50-60% would be more believable, and
it's probably higher that that, even. Even most college students are
wearing helmets riding between classes. Every bike messenger I've seen was
wearing a helmet. All Cascade Club Rides (this club is one of the largest
of its kind in the US --- it  has thousands and thousands of memebers),
including the Seattle to Portland Ride and all of their many weekly local
rides require helmets. The racers I've seen around town has almost always
been wearing helmets.

None of this is to imply anything about the safety of wearing a helmet,
only to show that, at least in Seattle, compliance with helmet wearing is
very high indeed.


Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 7/30/98 12:00 AM

Ryan Hare (rh...@saul1.u.washington.edu) writes:
> Dorre (drob...@metz.une.edu.au) wrote:
> :    Let's face it, when you have less than 3 or 4% of cyclists wearing
> : helmets (as in the first Seattle study, and it would appear in the study
> : in Cambridge, UK) there is probably something atypical about those
> : cyclists. It's very hard to make statistical adjustments for all the
> : differences in the two populations.
>
> As a resident of Seattle, and an avid cyclist, the statistic that 3 or 4%
> of cyclists in Seattle wear helmets is WAY wrong. I've no idea what the
> actual number is, but something like 50-60% would be more believable, and
> it's probably higher that that, even. Even most college students are
> wearing helmets riding between classes. Every bike messenger I've seen was
> wearing a helmet. All Cascade Club Rides (this club is one of the largest
> of its kind in the US --- it  has thousands and thousands of memebers),
> including the Seattle to Portland Ride and all of their many weekly local
> rides require helmets. The racers I've seen around town has almost always
> been wearing helmets.

The data was gathered in 1987 as I recall. Here's what one of the authors
said recently about helmet use in Seattle:

    Public-private coalitions work, said Diane Thompson, an
epidemiologist at Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center,
Seattle. Harborview's pioneering effort, which started about 10
years ago, raised helmet use from virtually none to 70 percent of
adults, 50 percent of children and 30 percent of teen-agers in the
Seattle area, she said.

So Dorre says 3 - 4%. An author says virtually none!

The control groups in the original study would have been better labeled
"uncontrol groups".

>
> None of this is to imply anything about the safety of wearing a helmet,
> only to show that, at least in Seattle, compliance with helmet wearing is
> very high indeed.


 

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Rob Zingarelli 7/30/98 12:00 AM
Stergios Papadakis wrote:
>   I look at the paths and streets here at my university and very few of
> the people who use bicycles as transportation wear helmets.  And this is
> central NJ, in the USA.
> Perhaps the magazines and catalogs all show pictures of helmeted riders
> because the helmet companies are doing a great job of marketing, and your
> Stone Mtn. riding buddies are just as susceptible to the marketing as
> everyone else.  The message is out: "you can't be a real cyclist if you
> don't have a $120 helmet!"  The students around here don't give a rat's
> ass about being "real cyclists" so they simply get on their bikes and
> ride.  No helmets, no special shoes, no gloves, no jerseys, etc.
>
> Many on this newsgroup agree that marketing plays a huge role in people's
> decisions.  The primary example cited is the SUV craze.  The companies
> promote SUVs heavily and people buy them.  Some say the auto companies are
> responding to consumer's wishes, but I don't think so:  the companies like
> selling SUVs because they are cheaper to make than regular cars, because
> SUVs don't have to meet the strict saftey standards that cars do.  They
> promote the vehicles that they make the biggest profit on, and the public
> falls for it.
>
> But anyway, do you not think that cyclists can be swayed by helmet
> marketing just as auto buyers can be swayed by SUV marketing?

Let's review some of what you've just said:
- Heavy advertising of helmets results in few people wearing them.
- Heavy advertising of SUVs results in a lot of people driving them
- Lots of people bike without helmets, so this is good.
- Lots of people buy SUVs, so this is bad.

*sigh*

--
-Rob Zingarelli  (remove 'boing' from address to respond)
  http://www.goldinc.com/~zing  Coastal Mississippi trail maps & stuff

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Andy Dingley 7/31/98 12:00 AM
On 23 Jul 1998 13:30:33 GMT, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett)
wrote:

>   doctor [...] at BMA conference [...]
>   obviously if you fell off a bike, your head was likely to hit the
>   ground first because that was the heaviest bit.

Great !  So I'm safe then, as I'll simply bounce back off my enormous
gut ?   8-)     I could just regard it as training for Gut-Barging (a
local pub sport)


On the "getting doored" question, where _should_ I ride ?   I have a
bar-end mirror on my offside bar and every couple of weeks I'll have
this clipped by a car overtaking me in traffic.  It's difficult enough
to ride out of the pot-holed gutters in this city without being run
over by traffic. If I started to allow a full door's-width past the
parked cars then I'd probably be arrested for deliberate obstruction.

--
Smert' Spamionem

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Andy Dingley 7/31/98 12:00 AM
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:26:59 GMT, fre...@news.connectnet.com (Fyodor
Dostoyfredsky) wrote:

>Which is more of a malaise -
>1) a debate on helmets
>2) a debate on abortion

The helmet debate is frequently repetitive, but does tend to consist
of slinging factoids at each other, rather than unarguable dogma.

I've also yet to here of a bike shop being fire-bombed for selling
helmets  


Read this anti-helmet zealots. Jim Quinn 7/31/98 12:00 AM
In my experience the odds of seeing bicyclists wearing helmets depends in large
part on where you are riding and for what purpose.  You don't see a lot of
helmets on people riding around the neighborhood or on college campuses.  The
probable reason is that people feel relatively safe in these areas and they
figure since they are only going 10 miles an hour even if they do wreck that it
is no big deal.  When you go to the more recreational riders that you see on the
bicycle trails or on the weekend bike shop rides the percentage of helmeted
riders is almost 100%.  I believe this is because the higher speeds and
distances causes the perceived risks to be greater.  Also peer pressure and
convenience play a large part in the choices of both types or riders.  A lot of
younger riders think helmets are for geeks and the recreational riders pressured
into wearing a helmet because everybody else does.

Just one side point, I would like to see some of these student riders wearing
tennis shoes and a t shirt after one of our saturday rides.  Every now and then
some of them show up for our rides and they always get dropped very early.  They
find out that the T Shirt is extremely uncomfortable when it has absorbed about
10 pounds of sweat and that there feet are killing them as well.  The most
dangerous thing is that some of them actually come out carrying no water.  This
places them in danger of heat stroke.  I usually drink at least 4 large bottles
of water during our 70 milers and I still loose about 5 pounds of water during
the ride.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Stergios Papadakis 7/31/98 12:00 AM

Rob Zingarelli wrote:

This is not what I said.  I was responding to another poster who said that
anyone who rides without a helmet must be a moron.  His evidence for this was
that he has lots of catalogs and magazines that contain pictures of people
riding with helmets on, and that the people he sees riding at Stone mtn. also
wear helmets.  (You snipped his post, I noticed.   I think that if you had left
it, the context of my post would have been more clear. )  I was pointing out
that one should not use the fact that catalogs and magazines print pictures of
cyclists with helmets as evidence that those who don't wear helmets are
morons.The poster I was responding to also mentioned that "everyone" who rides
at Stone mtn. wears a helmet.  I gave a possible reason for the fact that most
cyclists at Stone mtn. wear helmets:  they have been convinced, by reading
magazines and catalogs, that in order to be considered a real cyclist, they must
have a helmet on.  I mentioned, as an example,  the success of SUV marketing
just to support my point that people can be swayed by helmet marketing.
Heavy advertising of helmets results in lots of people wearing them, its just
that the students around here don't see the advertisements, so they judge for
themselves, without incessant messages from helmet companies and magazine
publishers, whether or not a helmet is necessary.  Most of them have decided
that one is not.  They are not morons for making that decision.

Now, I agree that it makes sense for people riding difficult trails to wear a
helmet, but I don't agree that one is necessary every time I get on my bike.  It
is unreasonable for anyone to call me a moron if I choose to ride to the corner
store to get some ice cream, and I leave my helmet at home.


In my previous post there are no value judgements.  I do not say that riding
without a helmet is good.  I do not say that driving SUVs is bad.  So here are
the value judgements:
I think SUVs are bad because they use a lot more fuel than smaller cars.
I think that riding a bike is good.  I think that the act of calling a
helmetless rider a moron is bad, because that person may give up riding and
start driving rather than start wearing a helmet.

Stergios


Doors (was Re: Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti) Bill Zaumen 8/1/98 12:00 AM
In article 14648...@news.demon.co.uk, din...@codesmiths.com (Andy Dingley) writes:
>
> On the "getting doored" question, where _should_ I ride ?   I have a
> bar-end mirror on my offside bar and every couple of weeks I'll have
> this clipped by a car overtaking me in traffic.  It's difficult enough
> to ride out of the pot-holed gutters in this city without being run
> over by traffic. If I started to allow a full door's-width past the
> parked cars then I'd probably be arrested for deliberate obstruction.
>

If cars are passing that close to you, there is obviously not enough room
for them to pass safely in your lane and you have (at least in California)
a legal right to use the full lane, subject to the normal rule about
what to do when 5 or more cars are queued up behind you.  That rule about
that BTW applies only on two lane roads where passing is not otherwise
possible: if cars can get by without an unreasonable delay or if there
are multiple lanes in your direction, the rule about pulling over if 5
or more cars are lined up behind you does not apply.

Just to be safe, keep receipts and damage reports about your mirrors,
and report every incident to the police and make it hit and run if the
driver didn't stop.  That will provide you with gobs of documentation
in the unlikely event that your are cited.  You can also, of course,
cite numerous books and accident statistics about the need to provide
sufficient clearance from parked cars for safety.  In any case, you
may find that the law is more reasonable than you think, even if most
people (unfortunately, drivers included) don't know.

Bill

PS  If you live in a different state, check your local laws even
though chances are that they will be the same as here.  Don't call
the police department to ask (the guy answering the phone may not
know and may just tell you what he remembers being told when he
was 10 years old about staying out of the way of cars).


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 8/1/98 12:00 AM

Please retract this, I said no such thing.

Andy Dingley (din...@codesmiths.com) writes:
> On 23 Jul 1998 13:30:33 GMT, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett)
> wrote:
>
>>   doctor [...] at BMA conference [...]
>>   obviously if you fell off a bike, your head was likely to hit the
>>   ground first because that was the heaviest bit.
>
> Great !  So I'm safe then, as I'll simply bounce back off my enormous
> gut ?   8-)     I could just regard it as training for Gut-Barging (a
> local pub sport)
>
>
> On the "getting doored" question, where _should_ I ride ?   I have a
> bar-end mirror on my offside bar and every couple of weeks I'll have
> this clipped by a car overtaking me in traffic.  It's difficult enough
> to ride out of the pot-holed gutters in this city without being run
> over by traffic. If I started to allow a full door's-width past the
> parked cars then I'd probably be arrested for deliberate obstruction.
>
> --
> Smert' Spamionem


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 8/3/98 12:00 AM
Joseph Jankovsky <joseph.j...@yale.edu> wrote:

>Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>
>> If such cheap, kindergarden like rhetoric is all you have to present
>> for bicycle helmets, your case is rather weak.

>At least Dave's got a sense of humor.  You're boring as hell.  

The plain truth is often dull and boring.   Sorry, you aren't that
great daredevil person, just because you have bought that "courage for
you head".  Bicycling is quite safe (even a little bit safer than
driving a car), with and without a helmet.  You don't risk anything you
wouldn't risk when just walking around, too.  Sorry about that.

Now go back to play, son.  And remember, carefull on that chute!

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 8/3/98 12:00 AM

Andy Dingley writes:
> ......

>On the "getting doored" question, where _should_ I ride?  
>It's dangerous riding in traffic and I'd rather stay as far
>away from it is as possible, HENCE MY PREFERENCE FOR RIDING  
>CLOSE TO PARKED CARS.
>
>I have a bar-end mirror on my offside
>bar and every couple of weeks I'll have this clipped by a car
>overtaking me in traffic PROBABLY BECAUSE I HAVE DIFFICULTY HOLDING
>A STRAIGHT LINE.
>
>It's difficult enough to ride out of the
>pot-holed gutters in this city without being run over by traffic
>BUT WHEN YOU FEAR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.

>
>If I started to allow a full door's-width past the
>parked cars then I'd probably be arrested for deliberate obstruction
>SO I'D RATHER RISK BEING DOORED AND FLOORED IN FRONT OF A TEN TON LORRY.
 
I suppose there's little more anyone could add to the helmet discussion.  
Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Linus 8/3/98 12:00 AM
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Avery Burdett) wrote:
>I suppose there's little more anyone could add to the helmet discussion.  

You'd certainly hope so, but somehow I think someone will think of something...

Read this anti-helmet zealots. Nick Kies 8/4/98 12:00 AM
I can see wearing a helmet if you are road rider and pass through
cities, but this is a MOUNTAIN BIKE newsgroup. On the other hand all
the statistics I  have turned up show that most head injuries happen
to mature male riders during rush hour. Of course most bike riders
fall in this group when you take time on bike into consideration.

I have yet to see any stats that are significant for trail riding. So
I only wear my helmet when the temperature is below causing my head to
melt in the helmet. Yah my helmet is vented but take yours off some
time and see how much more cool you are. When my head gets hot it also
contributes to sweat in my glasses on hills. This is a major set back
when you are trying to pick a line through the trail hazards.

In short the helmet industry has sold us a barrel of crap on helmet
safety. Bike accidents are very small minority of accidental deaths.
In fact you have a better chance of winning the lottery than dieing
riding your bike. Just the same that statistic takes a big jump when
you ride your bike at 5pm on weekdays. So wear your helmet where it
makes sense.

None of that takes into account the consumer soaking prices the
manufactures have found they can get out of us for helmet. There is
definitely something wrong there. Seem to me a person should be able
to find a decent cool helmet for 30 bucks, but 150 dollars for the
high end! People that buy those must be either rich, stupid or someone
else is paying. My guess is most are stupid and don't know what an IRA
or 401k is.

On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:38:57 -0700, Jim Quinn <jimq...@flash.net>
wrote:

>In my experience the odds of seeing bicyclists wearing helmets depends in large
>part on where you are riding and for what purpose.  You don't see a lot of
>helmets on people riding around the neighborhood or on college campuses.  The
>probable reason is that people feel relatively safe in these areas and they
>figure since they are only going 10 miles an hour even if they do wreck that it
>is no big deal.  When you go to the more recreational riders that you see on the
>bicycle trails or on the weekend bike shop rides the percentage of helmeted
>riders is almost 100%.  I believe this is because the higher speeds and
>distances causes the perceived risks to be greater.  Also peer pressure and
>convenience play a large part in the choices of both types or riders.  A lot of
>younger riders think helmets are for geeks and the recreational riders pressured
>into wearing a helmet because everybody else does.
>
>Just one side point, I would like to see some of these student riders wearing
>tennis shoes and a t shirt after one of our saturday rides.  Every now and then
>some of them show up for our rides and they always get dropped very early.  They
>find out that the T Shirt is extremely uncomfortable when it has absorbed about
>10 pounds of sweat and that there feet are killing them as well.  The most
>dangerous thing is that some of them actually come out carrying no water.  This
>places them in danger of heat stroke.  I usually drink at least 4 large bottles
>of water during our 70 milers and I still loose about 5 pounds of water during
>the ride.


Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Steuber The Interloper 8/5/98 12:00 AM
On 04 Aug 1998 12:15:49 EDT, monk...@delete.concentric.net (Nick
Kies) claimed or asked:

% I can see wearing a helmet if you are road rider and pass through
% cities, but this is a MOUNTAIN BIKE newsgroup.

Uh, this was cross posted to rec.bicycles.tech, r.b.misc, r.b.racing,
and r.b.soc.  Which one of these is the MOUNTAIN BIKE news group?

This reply is also cross posted.  I don't often do this.  To reply to
me by the ng, I monitor r.b.misc.

--
David Steuber
The Interloper
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.

If you can't trust an anonymous person on the Internet, who can you trust?

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. cwhite 8/8/98 12:00 AM

Dave Bailey wrote:

> I therefore conclude that you [Wolfgang] are a moron.
>
> --
> Dave Bailey
> dbail...@mindspring.com

Which is why he doesn't need to wear a helmut.  But then he can't be a
complete moron because he did manage to figure out he didn't need one.


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 8/26/98 12:00 AM
Wolfgan...@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) wrote:

>dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:
>
>> [...] Wearing a helmet is the *first*
>>physical safety measure of a cyclist.  It is analogous to wearing
>>a seat belt in a car - NOT a bike helmet.  
>
>No. It is analogous to wearing a helmet in addition to that seat belt
>in a car.
>
>It is well known (and has been beaten to death here) that even WITH
>seat belts and with air bags as a standard safety measure established
>long ago, many more people die from head injuries in cars than on
>bikes, and it is well known that even with belts, head and brain
>injuries are the most probable cause of death in a car.

Goddamnit, Wolfgang, I'm boring myself to death having to repeat
myself here.  I am NOT trying to make a logical argument for wearing
a helmet while riding a bike.  I am merely pointing out how people
tend to think about these things.  If you believe that this doesn't
make sense, fine.  Go and educate the people.  I'm not stopping
you.  

>So I hold back from commenting on the rest of your strawman arguments.

First you should try to understand what I'm saying.  Then you can
comment on it.  The funny thing is that just because I don't agree
with everything you say, I'm automatically pigeonholed as a helmet
freak.  All I am doing is pointing out why most people wear helmets
on bikes but not in a car, and why they don't see the two as
equivalent.  You are free to say that this doesn't make sense, and
if the figures are what you say they are (although I have never
actually *seen* any such figures posted on this thread), I have to
agree with you.  People are illogical.  

And just to repeat myself further, the reason I made this point
was to respond to an argument that people should not wear
bike helmets on bikes if they won't also do so in cars.  Sorry,
but that's bullshit.  You want the freedom to make your own
decisions about safety, but you also wish to impose your logic
on others, and thus, you are no different than your bitter pro-helmet
foes on the other side of the fence.  


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Dave Bailey 8/26/98 12:00 AM
dbail...@mindspring.com (Dave Bailey) wrote:
[...]

OH GOD I AM SO SORRY!!!  I had Free Agent post my queued
messages and didn't realize that this little tidbit was still rotting
away in there.  Please accept my sincere apologies and disregard
that crap.  


--
Dave Bailey
dbail...@mindspring.com

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 8/26/98 12:00 AM
In article <35b660e7....@news.mindspring.com>,

  dbail...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Goddamnit, Wolfgang, I'm boring myself to death having to repeat
> myself here.  I am NOT trying to make a logical argument for wearing
> a helmet while riding a bike.  I am merely pointing out how people
> tend to think about these things.

But that wasn't all that clear in your posting Dave. Remember that
although Wolfy has a terrific grasp of English, he has mostly received
it from the net and hence tends to miss subtleties yet.

> You are free to say that this doesn't make sense, and
> if the figures are what you say they are (although I have never
> actually *seen* any such figures posted on this thread), I have to
> agree with you.

In case you want the figures they are available at

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov

But the salient figures are:

 1992       1993       1994       1995       1996
39,250     40,150     40,716     41,817     41,907

These are the figures of fatalities in the listed years. Head
injuries account for about half of these deaths. Most are
SIMPLE head injuries that a helmet could probably prevent.
As you can see, despite almost universal use of seat belts
and the expanding use of air bags, the death rates continue
to ride.

The injuries are truely staggering:

   1992          1993         1994          1995          1996
3,070,000     3,149,000     3,265,000     3,465,000     3,511,000

And again, about half of these include head injuries of some sort.

Now compare this with the bicycle injuries and deaths:

year      1992       1993       1994       1995       1996
deaths     723        816        802        833        761
injuries                                             59,000

As you can see, the ratio of injuries to deaths is about 80:1. This
is pretty much a constant with humans.

The point is that bicycle deaths are falling (as are pedestrians --
apparently as we get older we grow more careful and thoughtful) while
motor vehicle deaths are rising despite a MASSIVE increase in safety
equipment, crumple zones, wider "safer" roads, and the like.
And many of these additional deaths are JUST LIKE THE OTHERS, about half
head injuries preventable, in probability, by helmets.

The NCSA estimates that you have a .000287% chance of a bicycle fatality
per year. And a .0221% chance of SOME sort of accident on a bicycle.
The same rates for an automobile are: .0158% and 1.323%.

As you can see, the chances are pretty small on a bicycle and making
legislation to control bicyclists is self-defeating.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Gary Smiley 8/28/98 12:00 AM
This newsgroup is about bicycles. Let's try to reduce the 761 bicycle
deaths. Maybe we should wear helmets in cars also, but  then they wouldn't
be bicycle helmets, would they? I find that the comparisons with auto
statistics might have some relevance, but not to this group. I'm glad
cycling is safer than driving. Let's make it safer.

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 8/28/98 12:00 AM
In article <6s59dj$6...@news-central.tiac.net>,

The point is that in a car a helmet has a chance of accomplishing something.
On a bicyclist they are shown pretty conclusively not to.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 8/31/98 12:00 AM
In article <35e9030b.18841933@omega>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de wrote:

>"Gary Smiley" <gasm...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
>>This newsgroup is about bicycles. Let's try to reduce the 761 bicycle
>>deaths.
>
>Right, let's do that.  For a beginning,  let's talk about education.
>Let's talk how to avoid bicycle ways. Let's talk about how to avoid
>mandatory sidepath laws. Let us talk about how to fight mandatory helmet
>laws.  
>...
>... So let's better _not_ talk about helmets. Or, if we must, let's
>talk about how to avoid them.

The whole problem (in these discussions) is this wretched confusion
between avoiding mandatory helmet laws and avoiding helmets.  If the
discussion really was focussed on the problem of helmet laws, there would
be a great deal more agreement, a great deal more intellectual honesty,
and a great deal more effectiveness.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 8/31/98 12:00 AM
In article <6s6aib$9jk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

>In article <6s59dj$6...@news-central.tiac.net>,


>  "Gary Smiley" <gasm...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> This newsgroup is about bicycles. Let's try to reduce the 761 bicycle
>> deaths. Maybe we should wear helmets in cars also, but  then they wouldn't
>> be bicycle helmets, would they? I find that the comparisons with auto
>> statistics might have some relevance, but not to this group. I'm glad
>> cycling is safer than driving. Let's make it safer.
>
>The point is that in a car a helmet has a chance of accomplishing something.
>On a bicyclist they are shown pretty conclusively not to.

Horse manure.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 8/31/98 12:00 AM

David Casseres (cass...@apple.com) writes:
> In article <35e9030b.18841933@omega>, Wolfgan...@gmd.de wrote:
>
>>"Gary Smiley" <gasm...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>
>>>This newsgroup is about bicycles. Let's try to reduce the 761 bicycle
>>>deaths.
>>
>>Right, let's do that.  For a beginning,  let's talk about education.
>>Let's talk how to avoid bicycle ways. Let's talk about how to avoid
>>mandatory sidepath laws. Let us talk about how to fight mandatory helmet
>>laws.  
>>...
>>... So let's better _not_ talk about helmets. Or, if we must, let's
>>talk about how to avoid them.
>
> The whole problem (in these discussions) is this wretched confusion
> between avoiding mandatory helmet laws and avoiding helmets.  If the
> discussion really was focussed on the problem of helmet laws, there would
> be a great deal more agreement, a great deal more intellectual honesty,
> and a great deal more effectiveness.
>

Spoken like someone who has never fought a helmet law.

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Giles Morris 8/31/98 12:00 AM
Avery Burdett wrote in message <6setjs$a...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...

>> The whole problem (in these discussions) is this wretched confusion
>> between avoiding mandatory helmet laws and avoiding helmets.  If the
>> discussion really was focussed on the problem of helmet laws, there would
>> be a great deal more agreement, a great deal more intellectual honesty,
>> and a great deal more effectiveness.

>Spoken like someone who has never fought a helmet law.


An inability to see the difference would certainly account for some of your
odder statements. Based on what I've seen here you, and some of the other
anti-helmet fanatics, would best serve your cause by keeping quiet if you
really believe that the only way to impede MHLs is to pretend that helmets
are useless or dangerous.

Oh, well -- it keeps the world a little more interesting.

Giles Morris


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. William Herrera 9/1/98 12:00 AM
On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:19:22 -0700, cass...@apple.com (David
Casseres) wrote:

>>... So let's better _not_ talk about helmets. Or, if we must, let's
>>talk about how to avoid them.

This sounds like utter nonsense (fear of being hit with a helmet?)
until, as you point out below, you realize the poster wants to avoid
it helmet _laws_.

>The whole problem (in these discussions) is this wretched confusion
>between avoiding mandatory helmet laws and avoiding helmets.  If the
>discussion really was focussed on the problem of helmet laws, there would
>be a great deal more agreement, a great deal more intellectual honesty,
>and a great deal more effectiveness.

Exactly true. The political agenda (avoiding helmet laws) is being
confused with the safey agenda (there are more head injuries for which
a helmet will provide some modicum of protecton per bicycle occupant
hour on the road than there are per motorist/passenger hour on the
road). Those who oppose helmets obfuscate this fact by quoting (via a
distorted comparison) statistics that are not corrected for the number
of man-hours on the road for all comers.

This will (I hope) be my last comment on the subject this year.


Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. tku...@diabloresearch.com 9/1/98 12:00 AM
In article <35eb807f...@news.rmi.net>,

  posting...@lookut.com (William Herrera) wrote:
>
> Exactly true. The political agenda (avoiding helmet laws) is being
> confused with the safey agenda (there are more head injuries for which
> a helmet will provide some modicum of protecton per bicycle occupant
> hour on the road than there are per motorist/passenger hour on the
> road).

Sorry, but if you're going to say something like that I assume that
you have some way of backing it up. I don't need a helmet to protect
me from a minor injury. If you do, more power to you. But don't give
me that safety helmet line that every helmet manufacturer in the last
30 years has claimed only to later claim that their new improved helmets
actually work as advertised. While the advertisements grow wilder and
wilder -- "Courage for your Head". Indeed.

> Those who oppose helmets obfuscate this fact by quoting (via a
> distorted comparison) statistics that are not corrected for the number
> of man-hours on the road for all comers.

We stand ready willing and able to learn at your feet. Please feel
absolutely free to undistort the statistics and studies performed by
qualified people on large populations.

You don't really believe Liu (The Expert) do you? I consider the full
populations of Australia and New Zealand to be a large enough sampling
size to prove pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not helmets
increase the safety of a person wearing a helmet.

We've cited all of these studies so often that even the keys on the computer
are wearing thin. But:

Hillman Meyer did a study in Great Britain. (Hillman, M. (1993). "Cycle
helmets; the case for and against". Policy Studies Institute, London.) His
basic conclusions are that for every year of life lost from accidents an
additional 20 years of healthy life are gained through the health benefits of
cycling. He recommends that the government not even promote helmets because
it tends to give the false impression (sort of like Liu) that cycling is
dangerous and drives riders away from that transportation option.

"Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use"
by P.Scuffham, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, no.1, pp.1-9,1997.
This was written by a team of pro-helmet scientists that checked and
rechecked the statistics looking for errors because their study showed
no benefits at all when helmet use went from near zero to, in some
cases, over 80%. Their final conclusion is that there appears to be
no benefits whatsoever in voluntary helmet use.

One significant proof that this paper is more accurate than most of the
US papers on the subject, is that the accident profile of the cyclists
involved in serious accidents tends to match the accident profiles of
motorcyclists. This massive difference in US studies is apparently due
to US studies taking all of the minor accidents involving bicycles
since serious bicycle accidents are extremely rare. Scuffham's study
defined a serious injury as requiring hospital admitance. The Riverview
(US study) defined it as any injury that presented to an emergency room.
Some of these presentations were for things like scuffed ears and the like.
Riverview also made no significant effort to separate out the 'head injuries'
that were to the neck and face and for which helmets offer little if any
protection.

There is also: CYCLE HELMET LAWS - FACTS,  FIGURES AND CONSEQUENCES
Dorothy L Robinson, Bicycle Federation of Australia. (Paper Presented at The
International Bicycle Conference, Velo Australis, Freemantle, 1996)
available view web at: http://lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html

Dorothy Robonsin has also published other papers such as: Robinson, D.L.,
Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws, Accid. Anal. and Prev. Vol. 28, No. 4,
1996, pp. 463-475.

There is another article available at the CRAG site
(http://www.tip.net.au/~psvansch/crag/) that has the following piece of
information about football helmets:

"The use of helmets increases the size and mass of the head. This may result
in an increase in brain injury by a number of mechanisms. Blows that would
have been glancing become more solid and thus transmit increased rotational
force to the brain."  National Health and Medical Research Council, Football
injuries of the head and neck, AGPS, Canberra, 1994.

But here we find such a thought ridiculed by people without qulification
and without any study of the problems whatsoever.

Here we have people who claim to be "government statistics experts" who
haven't read the papers but who proclaim that we should wear a
helmet "for God's sake." Hysteria of this sort by people who should know
better is part of the reason that all safety 'advice' should be taken
with a very large dose of salt.

There is a large body of scholarly work done on the effectiveness of helmets.
They tend to fall into two camps. Those done on large populations that
reveal no benefit and those done on limited self-sellecting groups that
show positive results. One interesting point is that most of these second
group of studies are funded by helmet manufacturers often through the
agency of the Snell Institute.

Believe what you will, but there is plenty of proof that helmets not only
don't work but actually cause accidents. (Contrary to a general trend to
improved road safety for other road users, these data suggest that for those
still cycling after the law the risk of serious injury, both to the head and
otherwise, increased substantially. Robinson's analysis put it that "if
similar numbers of child cyclists had been on the roads in 1993 as before the
law, deaths and serious injuries to child cyclists would have increased by 21
per cent, compared with a decrease of 21 per cent for child pedestrians and
20 per cent for child road users in general." -- COMPULSORY SELF-PROTECTION
ON ROADS: GAIN OR HARM TO SOCIETY?)

Instead we are treated to the statement that "they are all alike" when
discussing these studies.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Avery Burdett 9/1/98 12:00 AM

William Herrera (posting...@lookut.com) writes:
......

> Exactly true. The political agenda (avoiding helmet laws) is being
> confused with the safey agenda (there are more head injuries for which
> a helmet will provide some modicum of protecton per bicycle occupant
> hour on the road than there are per motorist/passenger hour on the
> road). Those who oppose helmets obfuscate this fact by quoting (via a

> distorted comparison) statistics that are not corrected for the number
> of man-hours on the road for all comers.

Even if this were true (which from the stats posted here many times by
others it's not true, but rather the risk is about the same) and helmets
worked as claimed, which group would experience the greatest reduction in
number of head injuries overall if 100% of both groups wore helmets?

When you've figured that out, then tell us whether you would rather see the
total number of head injuries reduced or whether you'd rather play
percentage games.

>
> This will (I hope) be my last comment on the subject this year.
>


--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bill Zaumen 9/3/98 12:00 AM
In article <6sgub6$f1l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:

> In article <35eb807f...@news.rmi.net>,
>   posting...@lookut.com (William Herrera) wrote:
> >
> > Exactly true. The political agenda (avoiding helmet laws) is being
> > confused with the safey agenda .....

>
> Sorry, but if you're going to say something like that I assume that
> you have some way of backing it up. I don't need a helmet to protect
> me from a minor injury.

Very interesting :-).  Maybe I'm confused, but I though Tom said
a helmet _only_ would prevent a minor injury, and that is why he
wears one.  Tom needs to explain this a bit:  he has gone on and on
about how a helmet can't protect one from a serious injury, and now
seems to say that he doesn't need one to protect him from a minor
injury.

So, why does Tom use one ???? The current statement would seem to
contradict his previous explanation :-).

> You don't really believe Liu (The Expert) do you? I consider the full
> populations of Australia and New Zealand to be a large enough sampling
> size to prove pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not helmets
> increase the safety of a person wearing a helmet.

New Zealand has a population smaller than that of the Bay Area.  This
is not  a large population when you consider the low frequency of
accidents.

> "Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use"
> by P.Scuffham, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, no.1, pp.1-9,1997.

Scuffham et al.'s study, according to Scuffham, did not track which
of the injured cyclist who showed up at the hospital wore helmets
and which did not (someone emailed Scuffham and posted a summary of
the reply on this newsgroup).

Rivera et al.'s study <http://www.smf.org/report.html) showed that
helmet fit is an important variable: a bad fit can change the injury
rate by a factor of 2 or 3. So where are the controls in the New Zealand
and Australian studies for helmet fit?

Bill

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Wolfgang Strobl 9/6/98 12:00 AM
nob...@netz.eng.sun.com (Bill Zaumen) wrote:

>Very interesting :-).  Maybe I'm confused, but I though Tom said
>a helmet _only_ would prevent a minor injury, and that is why he
>wears one.  Tom needs to explain this a bit:

No, he doesn't. His headgear is none of your business, Bill.

On the other hand, your attitude is a good example for how just wearing
helmets sets the stage for MHLs.  

I note en passant, that your twin David Casseres, who steps in every
time someone asks about the reasons for not wearing a helmet in a car,
conveniently keeps quiet, here.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. David Casseres 9/8/98 12:00 AM

Up yours, Wolfgang.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. jackson...@mindspring.com 9/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <EyKtF...@Federal.Unisys.COM>, "Giles Morris" <NoSpam.please>
wrote:

> Avery Burdett wrote in message <6setjs$a...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
> >> The whole problem (in these discussions) is this wretched confusion
> >> between avoiding mandatory helmet laws and avoiding helmets.  If the
> >> discussion really was focussed on the problem of helmet laws, there would
> >> be a great deal more agreement, a great deal more intellectual honesty,
> >> and a great deal more effectiveness.
>
> >Spoken like someone who has never fought a helmet law.
>
>
> An inability to see the difference would certainly account for some of your
> odder statements. Based on what I've seen here you, and some of the other
> anti-helmet fanatics, would best serve your cause by keeping quiet if you
> really believe that the only way to impede MHLs is to pretend that helmets
> are useless or dangerous.
>
> Oh, well -- it keeps the world a little more interesting.
>
> Giles Morris

And bike lanes probably a bit less crowded eventually.......
JD

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bill Zaumen 9/21/98 12:00 AM
In article <I0GN1.3213$8a7.4...@firenze.visi.net>, "Pete"
<p...@nospamvisi.net> wrote:

>
> Bike lanes are a significant source of injuries. I tend to avoid well used
> ones like the plague.
>

There is no evidence for this claim.  Maybe bike lanes are being confused
with sidewalks or off-road bike paths, in which case the problem is one
of terminology.

On-street bike lanes are treated de facto by cyclists and motorists the
same as shoulder stripes, legal requirements notwithstanding.

Bill

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Pete 9/22/98 12:00 AM

jackson...@mindspring.com wrote in message ...

>> Oh, well -- it keeps the world a little more interesting.
>>
>> Giles Morris
>
>And bike lanes probably a bit less crowded eventually.......
>JD

Bike lanes are a significant source of injuries. I tend to avoid well used
ones like the plague.

Pete

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Pete 9/22/98 12:00 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote in message ...

>In article <I0GN1.3213$8a7.4...@firenze.visi.net>, "Pete"
><p...@nospamvisi.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Bike lanes are a significant source of injuries. I tend to avoid well
used
>> ones like the plague.
>>
>
>There is no evidence for this claim.  Maybe bike lanes are being confused
>with sidewalks or off-road bike paths, in which case the problem is one
>of terminology.
>
>On-street bike lanes are treated de facto by cyclists and motorists the
>same as shoulder stripes, legal requirements notwithstanding.
>
>Bill

I was speaking in terms of the oft recommended "multi-use" bastardizations.
You know the ones. Proposed, funded, designed, and built for bikes only, but
then become de facto sidewalks. with all the attendant hazards associated.

Pete

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Bill Zaumen 9/23/98 12:00 AM
In article <4eNN1.3397$8a7.4...@firenze.visi.net>, "Pete"
<p...@visi.net> wrote:

> Bill Zaumen wrote in message ...
> >There is no evidence for this claim.  Maybe bike lanes are being confused
> >with sidewalks or off-road bike paths, in which case the problem is one
> >of terminology.
 > ....

> >Bill
>
> I was speaking in terms of the oft recommended "multi-use" bastardizations.
> You know the ones. Proposed, funded, designed, and built for bikes only, but
> then become de facto sidewalks. with all the attendant hazards associated.
>
> Pete

Pete, the "official" terminology used in California (i.e, by Caltrans) is
that a bike lane is basically a bike-only lane on the road (with
exceptions for turning vehicles).  A bike path is the thing that becomes a
a de facto sidewalk.

Some bike lanes get used a sidewalks too, but people around here also
ignore the sidewalks and walk down the middle of the road on residential
streets where there is little traffic, so I don't think the bike lanes
have anything to do with the behavior.

Bill

Casarteli and Boardman. Read this anti-helmet zealots. Pete 9/24/98 12:00 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote in message ...
>In article <4eNN1.3397$8a7.4...@firenze.visi.net>, "Pete"
><p...@visi.net> wrote:
>>
>> I was speaking in terms of the oft recommended "multi-use"
bastardizations.
>> You know the ones. Proposed, funded, designed, and built for bikes only,
but
>> then become de facto sidewalks. with all the attendant hazards
associated.
>>
>> Pete
>
>Pete, the "official" terminology used in California (i.e, by Caltrans) is
>that a bike lane is basically a bike-only lane on the road (with
>exceptions for turning vehicles).  A bike path is the thing that becomes a
>a de facto sidewalk.
>
>Some bike lanes get used a sidewalks too, but people around here also
>ignore the sidewalks and walk down the middle of the road on residential
>streets where there is little traffic, so I don't think the bike lanes
>have anything to do with the behavior.
>
>Bill

Ok, then. Bike 'lane' (Caltrans) probably has no greater proven injury rate.
However...I still avoid em like the plague. Too many unstandard situations,
esp at intersections.

Around here, a street will have a sign designating it as a "Bike Route"
(little green sign with a bike on it) with no apparent extra accomodation
for bikes. Sometimes its a bike 'path', sometimes on a residential street,
sometimes the actual sidewalk(!), sometimes a semi-major road (with no lane
stripe). Not necessarily connected with each other. Nor going anywhere in
particular. It seems as if someone said "We need to show a little support.
Here's some signs. Put them where you like."

I just use the road like any other vehicle.

Pete

More topics »