Two more cyclists, one 9 years old, killed.

[Ronko]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/c/a/2012/04/08/MNSE1O0DCI.DTL&tsp=1

I listened to a local TV news broadcast on this last night that reported,
additionally, that a witness saw the drive texting right before this occurred.
A father and his two daughters were riding on the sidewalk.

[AMuzi]

cleaned up link:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/buj29e5

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

[Chalo]

This is an example of why cars should not have safety equipment to
protect the driver from injury.

Chalo

[Frank Krygowski]

... and why 17-year-olds should not be allowed to drive. Their brains
aren't sufficiently developed to handle the responsibility.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:19:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> wrote:

>... and why 17-year-olds should not be allowed to drive. Their brains
>aren't sufficiently developed to handle the responsibility.

Maybe, but there's a problem. Learning complex physical skills is
more difficult as we get older. Watch an adult driving skool in
action and see for yourself. At 17, learning to drive is effortless.
A few more years later, and it takes longer. What a 17 year old can't
do is effectively multitask. I'm not sure what is the correct age to
learn how to drive. My guess is 16-18 is about right. Reduce the
distractions [1], and much of the problem goes away.

Incidentally, a rite of passage among safe drivers seems to be having
a major accident early in life. I did that by rolling my first car
while racing on a dirt fire break. Among my friends, the only safe
driver are those that had an early driving accident. Virtual reality
simulators are probably sufficient to give the typical 17 years a
taste of the experience, without endangering the public.

[1] Most smart phones now have accelerometers built in. They can
detect motion, deactivate the phone, and complain loudly, if one
attempts to use it while moving. This might cause problems for
bus/train riders and vehicle passengers, but might also save a few
lives.



--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[SMS]

This one hit close to home. The victims were the cousin and uncle of my
daughter's close friend. My daughter was in tears last night when she
found out about this.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Unfortunately many other people who are a lot older than 17 also try
to text and drive and sometimes have equally tragic results. Stupidity
is not limited to the young - unfortunately. I think this
preoccupation wth texting andotherstuff whilst driving is indicative
of the Me first attitide that seems to be so prevalent these days.

Cheers

[datakoll]

after a hard day running the steam roller, drove back to camp ,,,and

LO !

what izzit in the middle of road.....?

ohn yeah two baboons dress in dark brown....

excuse me

[Sepp Ruf]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> ... and why 17-year-olds should not be allowed to drive. Their brains
>> aren't sufficiently developed to handle the responsibility.
>
> Maybe, but there's a problem.

Parents who allow idiot, immature kids to engage in asymmetrical
warfare by driving a Deathscalade.

> Learning complex physical skills is
> more difficult as we get older.

You must be referring to texting, not to driving cars in California.

> Watch an adult driving skool in
> action and see for yourself.

unreliable sampling method.

> At 17, learning to drive is effortless.
> A few more years later, and it takes longer. What a 17 year old can't
> do is effectively multitask. I'm not sure what is the correct age to
> learn how to drive. My guess is 16-18 is about right. Reduce the
> distractions [1], and much of the problem goes away.
>
> Incidentally, a rite of passage among safe drivers seems to be having
> a major accident early in life. I did that by rolling my first car
> while racing on a dirt fire break. Among my friends, the only safe
> driver are those that had an early driving accident.

Try not to generalize from your bad driving, or your friends'.

[SMS]

On 4/8/2012 8:29 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:19:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ... and why 17-year-olds should not be allowed to drive. Their brains
>> aren't sufficiently developed to handle the responsibility.
>
> Maybe, but there's a problem. Learning complex physical skills is
> more difficult as we get older. Watch an adult driving skool in
> action and see for yourself. At 17, learning to drive is effortless.
> A few more years later, and it takes longer. What a 17 year old can't
> do is effectively multitask. I'm not sure what is the correct age to
> learn how to drive. My guess is 16-18 is about right. Reduce the
> distractions [1], and much of the problem goes away.

This is very true. When you see all the jokes in the U.S. about the
driving skills of certain ethnic groups, the reason these stereotypes
got started is because of so many people that learned to drive as
adults, not as teenagers. Go to their country of origin and the drivers
there drive just fine.

There are problem teenage drivers and problem adult drivers. In my city
a deputy sheriff killed two cyclists when he crossed the center line on
a windy road.

This driver was apparently a problem student based on the school he was
attending. Do you regulate the availability drivers licenses based on
the minor's academic success? Insurance cost is based on this already.

One thing that could be required for younger drivers is an ECU monitor,
such as "Snapshot" being marketed by Progressive. Of course it would not
take much for a driver to learn how to unplug it from the OBD-II port.
But that device doesn't monitor all forms of reckless driving, basically
just speeding.

[Jay Beattie]

As punishment or deterrent? As deterrent, it might not make a
difference. -- Jay Beattie.

[SMS]

On 4/9/2012 7:21 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

<snip>

> As punishment or deterrent? As deterrent, it might not make a
> difference. -- Jay Beattie.

Unless you believe that people drive in an unsafe manner, not caring
whether or not they crash, because of the airbags, seat belts,
side-impact reinforcements, collapsible steering column, padded dash,
safety glass, etc.. Isn't that the whole "risk compensation" theory,
that's already been completely discredited in terms of bicycle helmets?
It probably has no basis in vehicles either.

You can't extrapolate this tragedy into a justification for changing the
minimum driving age or removing safety equipment from vehicles. Those
are logic-free positions.

Distracted driving is something that could be greatly reduced if there
was sufficient public demand, a complete ban on the use of cell phones
by drivers, with huge fines, and perhaps a system that activates a low
power jammer when the car is in motion (though this would also prevent
passengers from using their phones). In one of our cars with a factory
installed GPS, the GPS does not accept input when the car is in motion
(a real annoyance because even the front seat passenger cannot operate it).

[Frank Krygowski]

SMS wrote:
>
>
> There are problem teenage drivers and problem adult drivers. In my city
> a deputy sheriff killed two cyclists when he crossed the center line on
> a windy road.

That's a common trick of fallacious reasoning: basing an argument on
rare exceptions, while ignoring the overall trends. Yes, you might find
a few examples of deputy sheriffs killing people while driving - but for
the same time period, you'll find many hundreds of examples of teenage
drivers killing people while driving.

It's probably not necessary to cite the driving stats for various age
groups. Everyone but SMS already knows them, and SMS will ignore any
data posted.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I agree that 17-year-olds are not the only ones texting while driving.
And there's no magic age below which driving is dangerous, and above
which driving is safe. It's not a binary thing. But the crash rate
data vs. age is pretty clear, and recent advances in brain science
indicate why. As I said, young brains are not fully developed,
particularly regarding risk and responsibility.

I think 17-year-olds should not drive. Actually, I think 20-year-olds
should not drive, but shifting the age of majority from 21 to 18 makes
it impossible to fix that problem. With 17-year-olds, there's at least
a tiny chance.

A 17-year-old should be on a bicycle or a bus.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

SMS wrote:
>
> Unless you believe that people drive in an unsafe manner, not caring
> whether or not they crash, because of the airbags, seat belts,
> side-impact reinforcements, collapsible steering column, padded dash,
> safety glass, etc.. Isn't that the whole "risk compensation" theory,
> that's already been completely discredited in terms of bicycle helmets?
> It probably has no basis in vehicles either.

Chalo's proposal (to forbid safety equipment protecting the driver)
obviously would never fly, and obviously, he knows that. And it's not
the most extreme tongue-in-cheek version that's been proposed. Back
when steering wheel air bags were first called for by Ralph Nader, there
were articles pointing out that steering wheel spikes pointed at the
driver's heart would be more effective at reducing crashes.

But regarding the issue of risk compensation: Let's examine those
extremes. SMS, would you drive exactly the same if your steering wheel
air bag were replaced by a sharp spike reaching within 6" of your heart?

If you can honestly say it would make no difference to you, then you can
continue pretending risk compensation doesn't exist. Most people, I'm
sure, would drive much more carefully with the spike. People react both
to the knowledge of hazards, and to the knowledge of extra protection.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

A spike pointed at one's chest is far different than a car that merely
lacks airbags. My driving did not change one bit when I transitioned
to a car with air bags. Should I be even more wild in a car with side
curtain aribags?

-- Jay Beattie.

[SMS]

On 4/9/2012 8:56 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

<snip>

> A spike pointed at one's chest is far different than a car that merely
> lacks airbags. My driving did not change one bit when I transitioned
> to a car with air bags. Should I be even more wild in a car with side
> curtain aribags?

LOL. Frank demonstrates the absurdity of "risk compensation" very well
when he has to create such a ridiculous scenario.

No one decided to drive more dangerously when airbags became standard
equipment. Or seatbelts. Or safety glass. Or side impact reinforcements.
The reason is probably that these are all devices that are pretty
passive in nature.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:59:39 +0200, Sepp Ruf <inq...@Safe-mail.net>
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> ... and why 17-year-olds should not be allowed to drive. Their brains
>>> aren't sufficiently developed to handle the responsibility.
>>
>> Maybe, but there's a problem.
>
>Parents who allow idiot, immature kids to engage in asymmetrical
>warfare by driving a Deathscalade.

Parental responsibility ends at age 18. It would be easy enough to
raise the driving age to 18, thus indemnifying the parents from the
activities of their kids. However, if maturity is a deemed a
requirement for driving a car, I probably would have failed until I
was perhaps 30 years old. Part of the definition and fun of growing
up is acting immature.

>> Learning complex physical skills is
>> more difficult as we get older.
>
>You must be referring to texting, not to driving cars in California.

No. I'm refering to learning how to drive in California. I've had
the displeasure of watching older relatives learn to drive. It wasn't
a pleasant experience. There were no fatalities but plenty of dents
and dings. Also, watching foreign and east coast drivers adapt to
west coast driving practices is interesting. My friends from Israel
seem to drive with one hand on the horn.

>> Watch an adult driving skool in
>> action and see for yourself.
>
>unreliable sampling method.

True. Examples, by their very nature, are anecdotal. Observation is
imperfect. Extrapolate at your own risk.

>Try not to generalize from your bad driving, or your friends'.

Perhaps you can do better? I'm age=64. One moving accident when I
was 18. I think I've received about 4 moving violations in my driving
career (not including parking). The last was about 20 years ago[1]. I
currently drive about 12,000 miles per year. I attribute my careful
driving style to rolling the car at 18 and carrying a lucky rabbits
foot. Of those friends with early accident experiences, most have
similar driving records.

[1] I was guilty of drunk bicycle riding about 10 years ago, but the
officer decided not to cite me.

[SMS]

On 4/9/2012 9:32 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> No. I'm refering to learning how to drive in California. I've had
> the displeasure of watching older relatives learn to drive. It wasn't
> a pleasant experience. There were no fatalities but plenty of dents
> and dings. Also, watching foreign and east coast drivers adapt to
> west coast driving practices is interesting.

I had some friends from Minnesota visit last year and we drove up the
coast into Oregon in two cars. They were freaking out at the hills, the
curves, and the fog, and called me at one point to say they couldn't
drive as fast as I was going, and I was not going very fast. Yet they
drive in snow and ice with no problem, on flat, straight roads.

When I was driving in Minnesota and called my nephew from the road to
make sure I was on the right freeway I said "it's strange, the road is
packed but no one is driving in the right lane." They told me that the
right lane would end in about ten miles and that Minnesota drivers are
so polite that no one wanted to appear to be cutting into traffic when
the right lane finally ended. On another trip to Minnesota, several
years later, there were signs on the freeway imploring drivers to "use
all lanes." It does seem to be rude to stay in a lane that's ending
until the last possible moment, but the reality is that equalizing the
use of all available lanes is the most efficient use of the highway.

The west coast driving practice that still irks me, 32 years after
moving to California, is that so few motorists use their turn signals. I
remember a bumper sticker "You Don't Have to Tell Me You're a California
Native, I Can Tell by the Way You Drive."

[AMuzi]

With Chalo's steel spike in the center of the steering
wheel, you can bet drivers would be more attentive. And if
not, they surely won't do it again.

In my experience, farm kids who learned to drive tractors
from a young age have a bit more respect for the machinery
and for physics than others. That's a very small group now.

17 y.o. driving a Thugalade? Probably didn't buy it with his
own money, saved from soda jerking after school.

[sms88]

On 4/9/2012 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:

> 17 y.o. driving a Thugalade? Probably didn't buy it with his own money,
> saved from soda jerking after school.

A 2002 Escalade is probably worth less than a 2002 Corolla with
$4/gallon gasoline. Middle class teenagers tend to end up with the
family's older vehicle. Wouldn't be surprised if the Escalade used to be
the parent's vehicle. But it's still an inappropriate vehicle for a
teenager.

My daughter drives our 16 year old Camry. She usually walks to school
and this morning she said that she was scared to drive. But she went to
pick up her friend who lost her uncle and cousin in this tragedy. I
won't call it an accident because it was caused by events that were
preventable.

[Frank Krygowski]

As far as you know, your driving didn't change when you transitioned to
a car with airbags. But you may not be perfectly aware of your driving.
Some of the changes may be subtle.

I do agree, though, that the effect would be far, far greater with
something as visible as a spike pointed at one's heart. Risk
compensation should be much more pronounced when the safety (or in that
case, danger) device is more prominent and less easily ignored. In
previous discussions on this topic, I've said that I doubt side impact
reinforcing beams in car doors produced any risk compensation at all.
That's because they're completely undetectable by the motorist, and are
barely (if ever) mentioned in sales propaganda.

On the other hand, big SUVs have been widely marketed as being very safe
for the occupants, and there's a widely held impression that they're
driven more aggressively on average than (say) compact cars. I suppose
we could look for data on that, if you like, to see if the impression is
correct.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

SMS wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 8:56 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A spike pointed at one's chest is far different than a car that merely
>> lacks airbags. My driving did not change one bit when I transitioned
>> to a car with air bags. Should I be even more wild in a car with side
>> curtain aribags?
>
> LOL. Frank demonstrates the absurdity of "risk compensation" very well
> when he has to create such a ridiculous scenario.

SMS, I'd be more than happy to outfit your car with such a spike, then
observe your driving. But that extreme scenario is not needed to prove
the existence of risk compensation. Try reading the book _Risk_ by John
Adams, for instance.

> No one decided to drive more dangerously when airbags became standard
> equipment. Or seatbelts. Or safety glass. Or side impact reinforcements.
> The reason is probably that these are all devices that are pretty
> passive in nature.

Would you include anti-lock brakes in your list of things that don't
produce risk compensation?

Would you still include them after reading this?
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html

Face it, Steven, you're way behind on this topic. Yet again.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

On Apr 9, 10:30 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 3:05 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ronko wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
> >>> f=/c/a/2012/04/08/MNSE1O0DCI.DTL&tsp=1

> >>> I listened to a local TV news broadcast on this last night before this occurred.

> >>> A father and his two daughters were riding on the sidewalk.

> >> This is an example of why cars should not have safety that reported,
> >>> additionally, that a witness saw the drive texting right equipment to

> >> protect the driver from injury.
>
> > As punishment or deterrent?  As deterrent, it might not make a
> > difference. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> With Chalo's steel spike in the center of the steering
> wheel, you can bet drivers would be more attentive. And if
> not, they surely won't do it again.
>
> In my experience, farm kids who learned to drive tractors
> from a young age have a bit more respect for the machinery
> and for physics than others.  That's a very small group now.
>
> 17 y.o. driving a Thugalade? Probably didn't buy it with his
> own money, saved from soda jerking after school.

The spike thing I can see, although Chalo was just talking about
safety equipment and not retaliatory spikes, buzz saws, Iron Maidens,
etc.

When I was a lad back in the Pleistocene, we drove all sorts of
vehicles with no occupant protection, unless you count doors and
windows -- and we still drove like idiots. The deal is that we
usually drove underpowered four-speeds with sloppy steering and
virtually no suspension. We had to pay attention to the act of driving
because the car did not drive itself. No cup holders and nothing but
an AM radio for distraction. We may have been idiots, but at least we
were proficient and attentive idiots.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms88]

On 4/9/2012 12:48 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

> The spike thing I can see, although Chalo was just talking about
> safety equipment and not retaliatory spikes, buzz saws, Iron Maidens,
> etc.

There's also a big difference between safety features that are designed
to protect you in a crash and systems that are supposed to reduce the
likelihood of a crash.

With vehicle features like AWD, 4WD, Traction Control, and ABS, those
few people that drive less carefully on snow and ice thinking that those
systems will save them are not doing so based on actual knowledge of how
those systems work.

Does anyone actually drive more carefully when in an older vehicle that
lacks ABS or TC than they do in a newer vehicle that includes those
features. Of course not, they are equally careful or careless.

The problem here is that the debate on "risk compensation" was settled
years ago, but some people are unable to admit the absurdity of the theory.

[Peter Van Buren]

On Apr 8, 1:02 pm, Ronko <ronkreu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
> f=/c/a/2012/04/08/MNSE1O0DCI.DTL&tsp=1
>

> I listened to a local TV news broadcast on this last night that reported,
> additionally, that a witness saw the drive texting right before this occurred.

> A father and his two daughters were riding on the sidewalk.

That's horrible. That Escalade should have a EDR (black box) so the
authorities should be able to determine some parameters
(speed, throttle position etc...) just before and during the crash
(assuming they can legally obtain it).

Peter.

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-09-2012 11:13, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> If you can honestly say it would make no difference to you, then you can
> continue pretending risk compensation doesn't exist. Most people, I'm
> sure, would drive much more carefully with the spike. People react both
> to the knowledge of hazards, and to the knowledge of extra protection.

Remember when the 55-MPH speed limits started being repealed?
People insisted (truthfully, as far as I know) that there were fewer
fatalities when it was 55.

However, I am not convinced that this correlation proves causation.
In fact, from observing other drivers (extremely small sample size,
I know), I suspect that the reduction in fatalities was not so much from
slower vehicles as it was from the increased alertness in watching for
cops while they drove as fast as they did before.

--
Wes Groleau

Change is inevitable. We need to learn that “inevitable" is
neither a synonym for “good" nor for “bad.”

[Frank Krygowski]

Damn, Stephen, do you ever read _anything_ on the topics you discuss here??


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Frank Krygowski<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> considered Mon, 09 Apr
> 2012 15:00:29 -0400 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> I do agree, though, that the [risk compensation] effect would be far, far greater with

>> something as visible as a spike pointed at one's heart. Risk
>> compensation should be much more pronounced when the safety (or in that
>> case, danger) device is more prominent and less easily ignored. In
>> previous discussions on this topic, I've said that I doubt side impact
>> reinforcing beams in car doors produced any risk compensation at all.
>> That's because they're completely undetectable by the motorist, and are
>> barely (if ever) mentioned in sales propaganda.
>

> Really?
> I've seen plenty of references to them, in TV and magazine adverts and
> even extending to SIPS (Side Impact Protection System) logos on
> Volvos.
> Could that be a difference in advertising methods between national
> distributors?

Volvos are pretty rare around here. Not absent, but on a typical day, I
wouldn't expect to see one. And I have two buddies who are Volvo
enthusiasts.

But I just spent some time searching around the Ford website. Not only
did I not see mention of side impact door beams, but a search for "side
impact" and a search for "door beams" both struck out.

Here's the Ford Fusion list of standard and optional features. Air bags
and side air curtains are mentioned. So is stability control,
child-safe locks and several other items. Side impact door beams are
kept secret, as far as I can tell.

http://www.ford.com/cars/fusion/trim/?trim=i4s&showCategoryTab=viewAll

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Phil W Lee<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> considered Mon, 09 Apr 2012
> 23:43:51 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> So the worst things are those that make little actual reduction or
>> highly increased level of risk, but are very obvious, and the best
>> would be undetectable but effective at reducing risk, or highly
>> obvious but ineffective at increasing it.
>
> Damn, I scrambled that last paragraph, so I'll try again:
>
> So the worst things are those that make little actual reduction of
> risk, but are very obvious, or highly increased level and are
> undetectable, and the best would be undetectable but effective at
> reducing risk, or highly obvious but ineffective at increasing it.

I caught your meaning the first time, and I absolutely agree.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> In the UK, it used to be the case that acquiring a motor vehicle
> itself was the greatest cost in starting to drive. That hasn't been
> the case for quite a few years now. Even the first year of motor
> insurance for a teenage driver costs more than most cars.
>
> Companies are now increasingly offering "black box" governed insurance
> to younger drivers, which allows the driver to govern their own cost
> by avoiding higher risk situations and behaviour.
> The electronics package includes gps, accelerometers, and real-time
> updates to the insurance company via gsm, so that driving late at
> night, hard acceleration, braking and cornering, and high speeds
> increase the cost - and the user can check it on a website and adjust
> their behaviour to minimise their risk, and therefore cost.
> Some companies are even starting to limit younger drivers to ONLY that
> form of insurance.

Brilliant! That's an excellent use of technology.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane Hebert]

Hard to see why a black box would be necessary here. Running over kids
riding a bike on the sidewalk?
Short of any major vehicle malfunction I don't see how this is anything
but clear cut.

[Jay Beattie]

On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> sms88 <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> considered Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:21:27

> -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 4/9/2012 12:48 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> >> The spike thing I can see, although Chalo was just talking about
> >> safety equipment and not retaliatory spikes, buzz saws, Iron Maidens,
> >> etc.
>
> >There's also a big difference between safety features that are designed
> >to protect you in a crash and systems that are supposed to reduce the
> >likelihood of a crash.
>
> >With vehicle features like AWD, 4WD, Traction Control, and ABS, those
> >few people that drive less carefully on snow and ice thinking that those
> >systems will save them are not doing so based on actual knowledge of how
> >those systems work.
>
> >Does anyone actually drive more carefully when in an older vehicle that
> >lacks ABS or TC than they do in a newer vehicle that includes those
> >features. Of course not, they are equally careful or careless.
>

> Check out the Munich taxi experiment.

>
> >The problem here is that the debate on "risk compensation" was settled

> >years ago, but some people are unable to admit the accuracy of the theory.
>
> IFTFY
>
> BTW, risk compensation can be easily proven:
> Would you head butt a wall while wearing a helmet?
> What about without one?

How about neither? Why would anyone head butt a wall?

> Many similar comparisons can be made, all of which clearly demonstrate
> that people will change their behaviour depending on the perceived
> level of risk.

True in part, but, IMO, a well crafted study would show that taking
away safety equipment would lead to a momentary blip of conservatism.
Take away the helmet, and a rider may ride more slowly down a
hill . . . for a day or a week, and then its back to business as
usual. That's the way it was for me. I started wearing a helmet in
the early 80s then started hanging with the anti-helmet racing crowd
and stopped wearing a helmet, and yes, I was concerned for a day or
two, but then I was back to doing the same old stupid things. I then
started racing on a team where the coach mandated helmets, so I went
back -- which was lucky, because I had some nasty head injuries after
that (not related to risky behavior unless encountering ice and
potholes counts).

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

Personal anecdotes can be interesting, and very convincing to the
narrator. But their weakness is they are too easily countered by an
opposing anecdote. FWIW, I'm convinced I descend somewhat more slowly
since I've given up wearing a helmet for most rides. I've described
being kept from topping 55 mph only by a car in front of me. I'd never
try that speed now, and it's been many years since I routinely wore a
helmet. On less extreme downhills I ride more frequently, my speed may
be the same as before, but my attention is much more focused. I'm way
more careful, years later.

I will admit, though, if I put on a helmet today I probably wouldn't
ride with as much abandon as I once did. Back in those days, I actually
believed a lightweight styrofoam hat added tremendous safety. Having
studied the issue for many years, I'm now sure that it does not. My
perception of the safety benefit has changed; and as Phil said, it's the
perception that affects behavior, not the actual level of benefit.

But let's keep in mind that risk compensation (or risk homeostasis)
applies to countless situations that have nothing to do with bicycling.
I recall the super-steep basement stairs in my grandmother's ancient
house, the ones with no handrail. I don't think anyone ever descended
those as quickly as the stairs in a modern house, no matter how long
they had to get used to them. IOW, the effect of perceived hazard
(probably accurate in that case) was certainly not temporary.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

On Apr 10, 7:54 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

The problem with the studies that get cited is that they are lame and
not well controlled, particularly with kids -- and they are too short
in duration. If we're talking about helmets, it seems that it would be
easy to prove if there is risk compensation by comparing the injury
rates of TdF riders before and after UCI mandated helmets and to
determine the trend over time. I don't doubt that there is such a
thing as risk compensation, I just don't know if it is bad or how long
it persists or how it operates in different populations. Keep in mind
that timidity can be more dangerous than assertiveness in some cases.

-- Jay Beattie.

[SMS]

On 4/10/2012 7:32 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

<snip>

> How about neither? Why would anyone head butt a wall?

And that defines the whole myth of risk compensation. The idea that
people will engage in behavior that will hurt them less if they are
using equipment that will lessen the hurt, rather than not engage in the
risky behavior at all.

"I think I'll crash my car into that wall because the airbags will
ensure that I will be injured only moderately severely."

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 9, 9:53 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> Phil W Lee wrote:

> > Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>  considered Mon, 09 Apr

The Big Three have been ignoring or at least tip-toeing around
"safety" advertising for many years, going back at least to the 50's.
The list of standard and optional features might be "spun", according
to perceived customer appeal-- child-proof door locks? Very desirable,
obvious need to any parent with a brain. Stability control? That's pre-
accident protection (with the shimmer of magic hi-tech). Side-impact
door beams? Not as "soft, pillowy" (ha!) as extra air bags all over
the place.

Volvo is to be given credit for, as I understand things, leading the
way in real accident research as well as "lab" work, as well as
building safer cars (according to their findings) with "structure"
improvements regarding passenger space intrusion high on the list,
and, maybe most of all, for having the guts to "advertise safety" in
the first place and then finding a way, through smart advertising, to
make that probably the #1 reason people in recent times buy Volvos in
the first place.

Americans, including "Congress", had to be led by the nose.

Briefly, friends of mine "broke the bank" to provide an older used
Volvo, including a list of hefty repair bills (one lightly advertised
feature!), for their teen daughter to drive. Which, in an opinion that
will never be changed, all paid off when she walked away, although
certainly "banged up" after taking a hell of a shot, from a
particularly nasty "low speed" accident where an idiot ran a stop sign
at speed (no attempt to slow); a deadly accident of the sort that
takes even experienced and careful drivers by surprise.

The Volvo was a totalled-out mess but the cabin was mostly intact
after impact, as was the driver <g>. The perception is that US
automakers have done a lot of catching up in regard to "safety" in
general and in particular, to minimizing passenger cabin intrusion
when the really bad stuff comes down.

I've had a few very close calls with this sort accident (all on the--
potentially-- receiving end, thank you), and several, just by chance,
"not close enough to count"; it's amazing how completely "wrong"
drivers can be! And the level of destruction attainable at 40 mph,
quite frankly, has to be seen to be believed.

I'm a careful driver with a lifetime of being called "grandma" etc.,
and a pretty good accident/citation record to back it up, and I know I
have run at least one red light, and lucky to have done it "clean" at
a fairly high-speed and sometimes very busy intersection. A moment of
confusion on an unfamiliar road...

The moral of the story might be to encourage "paying attention",
letting risk compensation go its merry way, as it will, and building
increasingly more effective "safety capsule" automobiles in view of
the bottom line when the vehicles have finished slamming into each
other.
--D-y

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 10, 9:54 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

>

> I will admit, though, if I put on a helmet today I probably wouldn't
> ride with as much abandon as I once did.  Back in those days, I actually
> believed a lightweight styrofoam hat added tremendous safety.  Having
> studied the issue for many years, I'm now sure that it does not. My
> perception of the safety benefit has changed; and as Phil said, it's the
> perception that affects behavior, not the actual level of benefit.
>
> But let's keep in mind that risk compensation (or risk homeostasis)
> applies to countless situations that have nothing to do with bicycling.
>   I recall the super-steep basement stairs in my grandmother's ancient
> house, the ones with no handrail.  I don't think anyone ever descended
> those as quickly as the stairs in a modern house, no matter how long
> they had to get used to them.  IOW, the effect of perceived hazard
> (probably accurate in that case) was certainly not temporary.

Well, it's refreshing, if in a somewhat stale sense of the word, to
hear you say you can wear a helmet and not be subject to risk
compensation, Frank.
Years ago in another go-round with this, you assured me that part of
the "magic" of the Wearing of the Magic Foam was an inescapable sense
of invincibility, even after I testified that I too was a "convert"
away from belief in The Total Efficacy of The Styrofoam Scion of Beer
Cooler, and that the governing of my riding conduct had a lot less to
do with seldom-seen head impacts (even in messy amateur parking-lot
bike racing) and a lot more to do with the near-universal slow-and-
painful healing, incl. "gravel picking" that follows the acquisition
of road rash subsequent to incidents of "pavement surfing" in bike get-
offs. One or two experiments being plenty sufficient to prove it is
better not to crash, even if you don't "really get hurt" i.e. broken
bones, concussion, death, etc. Repeating at late date: the helmet was
a forced inconvenience for racing, at least in my particular world.

Part of the "age producing caution factor" is the realization of
fallibility (!!!); another way in which risk compensation is defeated
and I'm with you on that one, too-- having gleefully played amongst
the Winnebagos myself, in the halcyon days of youth. What was that
quote from Steve McQueen about "it can happen to you, and it can
happen again"?

Hey, there's good reason, if a mighty slow response, IRT stair design
and construction-- including making all the steps the same size,
contrary to a complicated formula I once read in an old "carpentry
textbook", with modern building codes requiring no more short steps--
once thought, apparently, to be some sort of sine qua non of masterful
carpentry-- at top and bottom!!! And, if there's a rail to grab when
things go wrong, so the stairs, in effect, may indeed, at the end of
the statistical day, be safely taken with an increased sense of
abandon...? Sounds like "win win" from here <g>.
--D-y

[sms88]

On 4/10/2012 8:57 AM, dusto...@mac.com wrote:

> Briefly, friends of mine "broke the bank" to provide an older used
> Volvo, including a list of hefty repair bills (one lightly advertised
> feature!), for their teen daughter to drive. Which, in an opinion that
> will never be changed, all paid off when she walked away, although
> certainly "banged up" after taking a hell of a shot, from a
> particularly nasty "low speed" accident where an idiot ran a stop sign
> at speed (no attempt to slow); a deadly accident of the sort that
> takes even experienced and careful drivers by surprise.

Yet if you look at the side impact tests conducted by the IIHS and
NHTSA, many newer vehicles, even lower priced newer vehicles, do as well
as Volvo. And Volvo does not do universally well, i.e. the 2005-2009
S60, even with side air bags, was not top-rated for side protection, and
the 2005-2011 S40 was not top-rated.

There's a tendency for anyone who's been in a bad accident and survived
to proclaim that they'd be dead if they'd been in some other vehicle,
and of course there's no way to prove otherwise.

The use of so many airbags has helped equalize the crash rating to a
large extent.

Which are the current 2012-2013 vehicles that are top-rated by both
NHTSA and IIHS for crash test safety? Only four: Honda Accord 4 door,
Hyundai Sonata, Kia Optima, Volvo S60. But many cars have not yet been
tested by the NHTSA, and a few have not been tested by the IIHS.

[AMuzi]

Here's an engineer's report on that:
http://www.engr.wichita.edu/hlankarani/Abstracts/Venkat%201996.pdf

[sms88]

On 4/10/2012 8:57 AM, dusto...@mac.com wrote:

> The Volvo was a totalled-out mess but the cabin was mostly intact
> after impact, as was the driver<g>. The perception is that US
> automakers have done a lot of catching up in regard to "safety" in
> general and in particular, to minimizing passenger cabin intrusion
> when the really bad stuff comes down.

The problem with a personal story is that you really have no way of
knowing what would have happened in a different vehicle. Except you
probably can get a reasonable idea by evaluating the characteristics of
the vehicle versus other vehicles since there is a large body of
evidence when it comes to different makes and models of vehicles and a)
how they fare in crash test simulations, b) how the occupants fare in
actual crashes, and c) (though less useful) the relative number of
injuries and fatalities for each make and model of vehicle.

It's very similar with the whole helmet "debate" if you can even dignify
it by calling it a debate anymore since the evidence that supports the
efficacy of helmets is so overwhelming. When You look at a collection
of statistics with a large enough sample size for the margin of error to
be reasonable, you shake your head in bewilderment and sadness that
there are people in the world that seem to make it their mission to lie
about helmets.

Those of us that have studied the helmet issue for many years, and that
did so without first determining what they wanted the conclusion to be,
all realized, from actual data collected in a statistically sound
method, that bicycle helmets provide a a significant amount of
protection in head-impact crashes. Those that were anti-helmet to begin
with, took another approach, they searched for junk science and
statistics that supported their bias, and if they couldn't find any they
simply made them up.

The only agreement seems to be that the likelihood of being involved in
a head impact crash on a bicycle is sufficiently low that helmet usage
is not going to have a large impact on the injury and fatality
statistics. Yet for those that are involved in such a crash, the
effectiveness of helmets has been proven to be significant.

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 10, 1:40 pm, sms88 <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 4/10/2012 8:57 AM, dustoyev...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > The Volvo was a totalled-out mess but the cabin was mostly intact
> > after impact, as was the driver<g>. The perception is that US
> > automakers have done a lot of catching up in regard to "safety" in
> > general and in particular, to minimizing passenger cabin intrusion
> > when the really bad stuff comes down.
>
> The problem with a personal story is that you really have no way of
> knowing what would have happened in a different vehicle.

Amen, brother.

> Except you
> probably can get a reasonable idea by evaluating the characteristics of
> the vehicle versus other vehicles since there is a large body of
> evidence when it comes to different makes and models of vehicles and a)
> how they fare in crash test simulations, b) how the occupants fare in
> actual crashes, and c) (though less useful) the relative number of
> injuries and fatalities for each make and model of vehicle.
>
> It's very similar with the whole helmet "debate" if you can even dignify
> it by calling it a debate anymore since

Since some of the "debaters" dragged the whole thing into the mud? For
instance, by accusing those who disagree of "lying", being
"prejudiced" to the point of blind stupidity, or worse?

> the evidence that supports the
> efficacy of helmets is so overwhelming. When You look at  a collection
> of statistics with a large enough sample size for the margin of error to
> be reasonable, you shake your head in bewilderment and sadness that
> there are people in the world that seem to make it their mission to lie
> about helmets.

There you go again, dragging the discussion down to what can only be
described as "your level".

> Those of us that have studied the helmet issue for many years, and that
> did so without first determining what they wanted the conclusion to be,

Everyone has prejudices.

> all realized,

Whoa, let's have a great big citation on that claim-- "all"? I hardly
think so!

>from actual data collected in a statistically sound
> method, that bicycle helmets provide a a significant amount of
> protection in head-impact crashes. Those that were anti-helmet to begin
> with, took another approach, they searched for junk science and
> statistics that supported their bias, and if they couldn't find any they
> simply made them up.

SMS is really going to town, here.

> The only agreement seems to be that the likelihood of being involved in
> a head impact crash on a bicycle is sufficiently low that helmet usage
> is not going to have a large impact on the injury and fatality
> statistics.

Oh my God, the representation of "the doctor told me I (my wife, my
cousin, my CHILDREN would be dead except they wore that smashed helmet
which clearly proves everything I'm blabbering about" testimony is
rampant in these discussions)

> Yet for those that are involved in such a crash, the
> effectiveness of helmets has been proven to be significant.

No, it hasn't. You obviously wish to the skies that it had been, but
it hasn't.

(OK, backing up a little here and I hope to God my little white lights
go on when I put it in reverse-- For The Children For If Only One Is
Saved):
Well, let's just say, for purposes of discussion here, that at the
time and "in the current market" of my anecdote, my friends could have
saved at least repair bill money and probably bought a "nicer", newer
car for what they paid for that Volvo, but that "other" automobile,
again based on time and price, might well not have measured up to the
Volvo's performance.

Credit and "debits" where due; I appreciate the comments on
contemporary safety, although I stand by my comments IRT Volvo;
again, offered as a personal and anecdotal reference, "we" ourselves
once bought a vehicle new, and paid the full freight for doing so
compared to used or perhaps a "program car" (those can be very good
deals, economically), compared to the model-year earlier examples of
"the same thing", which were quite similar except for the addition of
several "cabin air bags" in the new vehicle.
And that was totally "for the children", namely our own two, one of
whom was not long out of a "car seat".

Well, I won't say it was money wasted even though we never "used"
those air bags. My "pavement rash" bicycling comments apply in a broad
sense to my careful driving of motor vehicles-- it's best to avoid
crashes in the first place.

OK, back in D (what, no lights or siren?) and back to bikes:

I've quoted a well-known study done by a helmet proponent here in
Austin, Texas, that showed helmet use having absolutely no salutary
effects in regard to reducing head injuries in bicycle accidents.
Since the "proponent" was Dr. Pat Crocker, prominent Austin physician:

quoting from:
<http://www.seton.net/about_seton/news/2009/05/05/
governor_appoints_dr_pat_crocker_to_the_texas_medical_board>

Dr. Crocker is an Emergency Medicine specialist with Emergency Service
Partners, P.A. He is also an assistant clinical professor of emergency
medicine for the University of Texas Medical Branch, a member of the
Seton Family of Hospitals Board of Trustees, Take Heart Austin
Steering Committee, and is a fellow of the American College of
Emergency Physicians. Crocker is also a member of the Travis County
Medical Society and Texas Medical Association, and chair of the Austin/
Travis County EMS Quality Assurance Board. He served in the U.S. Army,
and received a bachelor's degree and master's degree in nutrition from
the University of California at Berkley, and a doctorate of osteopathy
from the University of Health Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine
and Surgery. (end quote)

Crocker is also Director of the Emergency Dept. at the "new" Dell
Children's Hospital, and when the results of the first year of what
must be called a "set-up" study of bicycle-related head injury, a
second year was instituted (at what cost to hospital users and public
is unknown) which also failed to provide the expected results, which
were to be used, if past history of MHL's in Austin, Texas were any
indication, in re-establishing a MHL or at least bolstering
enforcement of the "under 16" law still on the books after the "all
user" MHL was revoked, some years before in some shame and
embarrassment, Dr. Crocker was forced to admit publicly that indeed,
bicycle helmets were not indicated to be of any use in reducing head
injury, and further, that the main associated and possibly "causative
factor" found was RWI, especially relating to alcohol abuse. And
there, praise the Lord above, went the political ammunition for the
good and well politically connected doctor to realize his apparent
dream of making everyone on a bicycle in Austin, Texas wear a helmet.
The "under 16" mandate, to the best of my knowledge, is still on the
books but again, is seldom enforced. And there's another can of worms
for the helmeteers to defend, "selective enforcement" based on "race",
and neighborhood ("socio-economic status related to "who can fight
back").

Gosh, Dr. Crocker-- what was that about "rotational brain injury"
relating to head impacts that we might find in the literature, again?
Skull not broken, brain still injured after little Suzy or little
Johnny fell off their bicycle? Hello???

I've gone around the mulberry bush with you on this exact matter
before. You may-- or may refrain from-- demonstrating your own
prejudices by trying to attack that well-funded and most professional
study on the grounds of sample size-- oh look, no surprise, you've
already done so in your post quoted above. Gosh, talk about a leopard
not changing his spots-- to use a complimentary metaphor from the
animal kingdom. You're welcome, SMS.

What the hell, that's what ignorant near-sighted knee-jerk reactions
according to know-it-all prejudices are all about. Carry on!

Wear the damn thing if you believe, or don't believe. Don't get run
over by a motor vehicle or slam your head into the pavement in the
first place, is the best advice.
--D-y

[Frank Krygowski]

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>
> The problem with the studies that get cited is that they are lame and
> not well controlled, particularly with kids -- and they are too short

> in duration.If we're talking about helmets, it seems that it would be

> easy to prove if there is risk compensation by comparing the injury
> rates of TdF riders before and after UCI mandated helmets and to
> determine the trend over time.

That is interesting.

I guess we'd be looking not at the number of fatal or serious (i.e.
consequential) head injuries before and after the helmet mandate. Those
would be too close to zero both before and after to generate any robust
statistical conclusion.

Instead, we'd be looking at the number of individual rider crashes, per
rider-mile. If there's a significant increase concurrent with the
imposition of a helmet requirement, it would be evidence of risk
compensation generated by that requirement. If there's no increase in
crash rate, it would argue against risk compensation.

I have no idea which way that would come out. Do we have data on the
number of riders involved in crashes each year of the Tour?

Sounds like a job for Carl.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Of course, it doesn't go that way. Instead: "I think I'll keep going
70 mph despite this snowstorm, because my SUV is very capable and safe,
and heck, I've got anti-lock brakes."

The brick wall appears later.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

sms88 wrote:
>
>
> There's a tendency for anyone who's been in a bad accident and survived
> to proclaim that they'd be dead if they'd been in some other vehicle,
> and of course there's no way to prove otherwise.

:-) And oddly enough, there's the same tendency among people who crash
wearing foam hats, versus any other hat!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

sms88 wrote:
>
>
> It's very similar with the whole helmet "debate" if you can even dignify
> it by calling it a debate anymore since the evidence that supports the
> efficacy of helmets is so overwhelming. When You look at a collection of
> statistics with a large enough sample size for the margin of error to be
> reasonable, you shake your head in bewilderment and sadness that there
> are people in the world that seem to make it their mission to lie about
> helmets.

For an example of a collection of large sample size statistics, one
might examine the total number of bicycle fatalities in the U.S. over
the time period when helmet use was steadily and significantly
increasing. Once can compare with the total number of pedestrian
fatalities during that same period - a useful control group, since both
are killed almost exclusively by cars, and both are treated using the
same ever-improving medical technology.

By examining the fatality counts for those groups, one should be able to
see the much greater drop in bike fatalities compared to ped fatalities,
since pedestrians don't get the benefit of helmets.

And here's that data:
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

Oops. No identifiable helmet benefit.

>
> Those of us that have studied the helmet issue for many years, and that
> did so without first determining what they wanted the conclusion to be,
> all realized, from actual data collected in a statistically sound
> method, that bicycle helmets provide a a significant amount of
> protection in head-impact crashes.

Bullshit, as usual. When I first started studying this issue, I wore a
helmet for roughly 100% of my rides, and advised others to do the same.

The more data I found and the more research I read, the more I became
convinced that bike helmets were a scam. I still feel that way.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Peter Van Buren]

I agree it seems to be clear cut. I'm only suggesting that the EDR
data may make the evidence against him more damning.

[sms88]

On 4/10/2012 1:12 PM, dusto...@mac.com wrote:

> Oh my God, the representation of "the doctor told me I (my wife, my
> cousin, my CHILDREN would be dead except they wore that smashed helmet
> which clearly proves everything I'm blabbering about" testimony is

> rampant in these discussions).

That testimony, while based on reality, needs to be tempered with
counter-testimony that cites the number of such crashes where the
wearing of the helmet would have that effect.

The problem is those with the attitude of "if we can save just one life
it's all worth it," and "let's pass more laws to make everything safe
for everybody." But in public testimony on one side you have doctors,
paramedics, nurses, and law enforcement all recounting the times helmets
have made a difference, while on the other side you have people talking
about driving helmets, gardening helmets, foam hats, etc., and citing
junk science that is easily discredited. Who do you think the
politicians are going to believe?

[Frank Krygowski]

sms88 wrote:
>
> The problem is those with the attitude of "if we can save just one life
> it's all worth it," and "let's pass more laws to make everything safe
> for everybody." But in public testimony on one side you have doctors,
> paramedics, nurses, and law enforcement all recounting the times helmets
> have made a difference, while on the other side you have people talking
> about driving helmets, gardening helmets, foam hats, etc., and citing
> junk science that is easily discredited. Who do you think the
> politicians are going to believe?

When I testified on this matter at the state level, it was after the
usual gaggle of oh-so-concerned Safe Kids officers, school nurses,
elderly proselytizers, and one kid who cried on cue about how badly he'd
have been killed if not for his helmet.

One other cyclist and I spoke describing the actual data, with citations
(something SMS seems absolutely incapable of). Interestingly, one
legislator who was actually dozing came awake and paid attention when we
began speaking. I also provided a handout to the legislators containing
some of the pertinent research.

The mandatory helmet law never made it out of that committee. I don't
know if the battle will someday be lost, but it's been about ten years
now with still no statewide MHL.

Oh, and one elderly proselytizer came up to us afterward and asked for
our information. Apparently, we'd opened his eyes to the fact that
there were, in fact, two sides to the debate - and that his side was weaker.

It's pretty hard to make a case that bike helmets are critical to
society, when bicycling is one of the most popular active pastimes, but
only 0.6% of America's brain injury deaths occur through biking.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 10, 5:44 pm, sms88 <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:

You are trying to sidestep here. To the point, there is no way an
accident can be duplicated to either take off a "life-saving" helmet,
or to put a helmet on a dead-- or at least brain-dead-- rider to see
what would have happened with or without helmet.

Therefore the wearing of a helmet can't be offered in "counter-
testimony", whether the fall-er was (supposedly) spared injury or
death.

"The problem" is with people who offer up "testimony" that,
essentially, is worthless.
Your continuing written verbal garbage aside, there indeed is a
problem with "politicians" believing junk testimony. That's a problem
when "doctors, paramedics, nurses, and law enforcement" offer such
testimony without any way of backing up their claims. This is fear-
mongering and rhetorical appeal using non-existent "expertise".

How many of your "people" there have even done any real research, do
you think, that went an inch further than reading Snell or ANSI data,
which purport to show the amount of lessening of measured impact for a
helmeted head? Or read "statistics" that mentioned "85 percent
reductions in head injury" with the use of helmets, and so on?

I've cited the example of my friend's helmet where the magic foam did
not compress when he landed on the back of his head, in a very low-
speed accident. Yes, the foam broke, but that's not how it's
advertised to work. He did get KO'd, and that's totally out cold and
unresponsive for at least a few moments. Ten seconds, fifteen? I
wasn't timing the event. Don't bother trying to claim that he would
have been more severely injured or even dead had he not worn a helmet,
because (and here we go again) the foam did not compress to any
observable degree, when checked against an identical, un-crashed
helmet, and we can't re-run the accident with his helmet off while you
hope he is severely injured or dies just to prove your point.

Whoops, there goes that silly emperor again, and he still doesn't have
any clothes on!

I'll try again: wear the damn thing if it makes you feel good. I
almost always wear mine; although I might have different reasons from
you for the wearing, I still do put it on before a bike ride, almost
without exception, even for little "tune up" rides and so forth. Do I
think it's going to "save my life"? Only if I get really lucky and
crash just right. Wait a minute, if it's OK with you, I'll just skip
the crash in the first place. Sound good?

Pat Crocker shot his own intended law down. Take a lesson; maybe
starting with the basic understanding that, as I was taught in a
simple semester "stats" section of some math class I took many years
ago, that small samples and by extrapolation, small studies can and do
apply over vast populations. As I recall, that was the first little
nugget of information that was covered, applying to national political
elections-- IOW, it didn't take many subjects in a sample to account
for regional differences, as contrary to "common sense" as that might
seem. Somewhat similar to the "common sense" that tells you a foam hat
just has to protect your head.
--D-y

[Dan O]

On Apr 10, 7:54 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

I think I probably ride *more* cautiously with a helmet on. The very
thing that makes me put it on in the first place is a cauitious
mindset. I do not count on it to save me, though - just to ameliorate
consequences FWIW; and it's not worthless.

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-10-2012 12:51, sms88 wrote:
> There's a tendency for anyone who's been in a bad accident and survived
> to proclaim that they'd be dead if they'd been in some other vehicle,
> and of course there's no way to prove otherwise.

But I've never heard anyone say, "I'd still be alive if I had been in a
different car."

--
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-10-2012 18:44, sms88 wrote:
> Who do you think the politicians are going to believe?

Whoever pays them enough or gets them re-elected.

--
Wes Groleau

Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.

[Duane Hebert]

On 4/10/2012 11:12 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> I think I probably ride *more* cautiously with a helmet on. The very
> thing that makes me put it on in the first place is a cauitious
> mindset. I do not count on it to save me, though - just to ameliorate
> consequences FWIW; and it's not worthless.

Sure Dan, but you're probably forgetting the layer of aluminum foil
under the helmet.
Your perception is too close to that of an earthling.

[sms88]

On 4/10/2012 8:45 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 04-10-2012 18:44, sms88 wrote:
>> Who do you think the politicians are going to believe?
>
> Whoever pays them enough or gets them re-elected.

When it comes to something like helmets, there's very little downside
for politicians to take the word of paramedics, doctors, nurses, and
public safety officials versus some lunatic who shows up insisting that
if a helmet law is enacted everyone will stop riding bicycles and
instead sit in front of the TV eating fatty snacks and becoming obese
and contracting heart disease.

[Frank Krygowski]

If you've got a quote of someone saying that, please post it with full
citation.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Apr 10, 5:22 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

A helmet can not protect from all impacts

BUT, if a styrofoam helmet is so useless why aren't the old leather
hairnet helmets allowed in races or other bicycling events? After all
the styroafoam helmet offers virtually no protection so why not just
wear the leather hairnet and be that much more comfortable?

One year I was riding a regional tour and it got really hot and humid.
The helmet was darn uncomfortable and the sweat dripping into my
eyesmade wearing it on my head hazardous as I kept blinking trying to
clear the burning sweat. I finally took off the helmet and looped its
straps through my fanny pack. Sure enough at one of the rest stops
someone took issue with the fact that my helmet wasn't being worn on
my head. I told them that the waiver I signed only stated that I would
wear an approved helmet at all times during the ride and that nowhere
di it state in the wiaver that the helmet had to be worn on my head -
just that it had to be worn. That was a great loophole.

Cheers

[sms88]

On 4/11/2012 10:32 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> BUT, if a styrofoam helmet is so useless why aren't the old leather
> hairnet helmets allowed in races or other bicycling events? After all
> the styroafoam helmet offers virtually no protection so why not just
> wear the leather hairnet and be that much more comfortable?

Or one of the old Skid Lids?
<http://vanscyoc.net/blog/uploads/Memorabilia_Collectible/IMG_5668.JPG>.

No one actually believes that expanded polystyrene foam helmets provide
virtually no protection. What you see are ridiculous scenarios about how
since a helmet won't protect you if you are broadsided by a truck, or if
you are hit head-on by a vehicle traveling 60MPH, that they serve no
purpose.

In reality, most car/bicycle accidents are not of that type. Typically,
in bicycle-vehicle collisions the cyclists will go flying through the
air, and will be decelerating until they hit the ground, and at impact
they will be going much slower than the vehicle that hit them. In other
accidents, such as single bicycle accidents or bicycle-bicycle
accidents, a helmet also provides significant protection.

Isn't it funny-sad how these lobbying groups have learned all the code
words and are able to ignore all the evidence with statements like
"remains unclear" or "needs more study."

It is true that helmet promotion, especially to kids, is often done
without accompanying education on safe riding techniques, though I was
pleased to see an article in the paper yesterday about a local bicycle
education program. Helmets are not a panacea. Helmet usage by youths in
the U.S. has reduced fatalities by 15%, not a huge amount. In New
Zealand, an 18.7% decline in head injuries is attributed to increased
helmet usage following the imposition of a helmet law (of course the
vast majority of cyclists were already wearing helmets prior to the MHL).

> One year I was riding a regional tour and it got really hot and humid.
> The helmet was darn uncomfortable and the sweat dripping into my
> eyesmade wearing it on my head hazardous as I kept blinking trying to
> clear the burning sweat. I finally took off the helmet and looped its
> straps through my fanny pack. Sure enough at one of the rest stops
> someone took issue with the fact that my helmet wasn't being worn on
> my head. I told them that the waiver I signed only stated that I would
> wear an approved helmet at all times during the ride and that nowhere
> di it state in the wiaver that the helmet had to be worn on my head -
> just that it had to be worn. That was a great loophole.

Not really. It was pretty clear that "wearing" means on your person,
somewhere. But on long slow uphills on tours, when there is little
traffic, there's nothing all that dangerous about removing your helmet.

[Wes Groleau]

The sad thing is that to some extent, paramedics, doctors, nurses, and
public safety officials are just like everybody else. They only appear
to be experts. I did a lot of reading of medical research when I found
out I am diabetic. One thing I learned is that a huge amount of what
we are told is almost as bad as that last "forward this to everyone you
know" e-mail.

I now realize my college room-mate was correct. He was a Psychology
major, and he used to say something like,

"The psychological literature is
10% empirical research;
40% what the author suspects is true; and
50% quoting the 40%."

It appears to be similar in a lot of other fields.

--
Wes Groleau

“Ideas are more powerful than guns,
We would not let our enemies have guns;
why should we let them have ideas?”
— Jozef Stalin

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-11-2012 13:32, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> The helmet was darn uncomfortable and the sweat dripping into my
> eyesmade wearing it on my head hazardous as I kept blinking trying to
> clear the burning sweat. I finally took off the helmet and looped its

I've ridden in weather that made that happen. Never has my helmet
contributed. In fact, my helmet haas better ventilation than the
ball caps I wore before I decided I should set a good example for
the kids across the street.

--
Wes Groleau

Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp

[sms88]

On 4/11/2012 10:13 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

> The sad thing is that to some extent, paramedics, doctors, nurses, and
> public safety officials are just like everybody else. They only appear
> to be experts.

That may be partially true. But all things are relative. With the
knowledge and credibility of the AHZs is close to zero, the paramedics,
doctors, nurses, and public safety officials look like geniuses. Almost
certainly you'll probably never hear one of them talking about gardening
helmets or foam hats.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I did not know that the knowlwdge and the credibility of those who
oppose hemet use or mandatory helmet use, was zero.

I think there are some who would not ever be convinced to wear a
helmet no matter what srt of data was presented just as there are
those who would not stop wearing a helmet no matter what data was
shown. It seems o me that the helmet debate is a lot like either
religious debates or political debates.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

I believe one way to tell the credibility of a person in a debate is
to examine whether they cite data and research papers, give links to
such information, and discuss the strengths and shortcomings of
relevant research.

As an example, D-Y cited and discussed Crocker's recent paper - i.e.
his failed attempt to show the benefits of helmets in Austin, as part
of his work to enact an all-ages mandatory helmet law. By contrast,
SMS slings the term "AHZ" and phrases like "everybody knows" or "all
studies show" but essentially never gives a citation or link.

I've seen the same split in other, non-bicycling debates: demagogues
with no data on one side, people citing data and sources on the
other. I go with the data. It's what changed me from a helmet
promoter to a helmet skeptic.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Apr 12, 1:19 am, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 04-11-2012 13:32, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > The helmet was darn uncomfortable and the sweat dripping into my
> > eyesmade wearing it on my head hazardous as I kept blinking trying to
> > clear the burning sweat. I finally took off the helmet and looped its
>
> I've ridden in weather that made that happen.  Never has my helmet
> contributed.  In fact, my helmet haas better ventilation than the
> ball caps I wore before I decided I should set a good example for
> the kids across the street.

That has happened to me many times. The most common (and worst)
incidents were when I climbed a hill and loaded the helmet's front
sweat pad, then crested and began a fast descent. An eyeful of
blinding sweat was very common. I suspect the frequency of the
problem depends on an individual's tendency to sweat, the local
temperature and humidity, perhaps details of wind speed, and the
design of the particular helmet.

I do sweat a lot. Classic headbands don't help, they just act as
reservoirs. These days, I use a classic cotton cycling cap. It
controls sweat far better than anything else I've tried, including
thick sweat bands, thin ones, non-absorbent sweat "gutters," and
helmets.

It's almost as if 100 years of bicycling yielded an effective design!

- Frank Krygowski

[sms88]

On 4/12/2012 6:04 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

<snip>

> I did not know that the knowlwdge and the credibility of those who
> oppose hemet use or mandatory helmet use, was zero.

Now you know. Well at least for the the former.

[Sepp Ruf]

Phil W Lee wrote:

> BTW, risk compensation can be easily proven:
> Would you head butt a wall while wearing a helmet?
> What about without one?

Are there any London bookmakers, where, at this stage, I could have
invested a major sum for the benefit of the surviving part of the
Afghani family, knowing exactly that scum would seize the opportunity
to derail even this thread?

[AMuzi]

A conclusion reached right here on RBT in the mid 1990s.

et seq. from time to time

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

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-12-2012 11:45, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> I believe one way to tell the credibility of a person in a debate is
> to examine whether they cite data and research papers, give links to
> such information, and discuss the strengths and shortcomings of
> relevant research.

Ya think? Or could it be that some people have learned to fake
citations, knowing that 99% of the listeners won't verify?

Another cliché is "studies show." WHAT studies ?!?

I was really getting irritated with one book after dozens of "studies
show" when wonder of wonders, here was something bearing a remote
resemblance to a citation. With a little bit of effort, I figured out
which paper it was--and found that it clearly did NOT show what the
book alleged.

--
Wes Groleau

“There are more people worthy of blame
than there is blame to go around."

[Frank Krygowski]

On Apr 12, 7:37 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 04-12-2012 11:45, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > I believe one way to tell the credibility of a person in a debate is
> > to examine whether they cite data and research papers, give links to
> > such information, and discuss the strengths and shortcomings of
> > relevant research.
>
> Ya think?  Or could it be that some people have learned to fake
> citations, knowing that 99% of the listeners won't verify?

When I put up a citation, I do it so people _can_ verify it. I've
often posted direct links, and I've often suggested people visit their
library to get help acquiring the ones that don't have direct links.

> Another cliché is "studies show."  WHAT studies ?!?

Depends. Do you have a more specific question so I know where to
direct you?

Here's a broad summary of what the dozens of helmet studies have
found:

Case-control studies on helmet use abound. They are cheap and easy to
set up, they're simple in concept, and they do what most helmet
researchers want - that is, they let researchers conclude that helmets
are wonderfully effective, and that if everybody wears helmets when
biking, head injuries will drop remarkably.

Time-trend studies examine what happens when everybody (or at least,
lots and lots of people) actually _do_ begin wearing helmets. They're
much more difficult, because it's necessary to first get a population
that increases its helmet use significantly, preferably in a fairly
short time. That pretty much limits one to places that have helmet
laws. And they require counts of bicycle use, something that's been
shown to drop with helmet laws. Anyway, these tend to show no per-
cyclist drop in serious head injuries, or even an increase.

If you really want the citations (although I've posted them many
times) I can do it when I'm in my office.

>
> I was really getting irritated with one book after dozens of "studies
> show" when wonder of wonders, here was something bearing a remote
> resemblance to a citation.  With a little bit of effort, I figured out
> which paper it was--and found that it clearly did NOT show what the
> book alleged.

Yep, that's a problem. The data is what's important, not the author's
possibly biased conclusions.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

It's a universal truth. All people are just people. (Psychology is a
fascinating example of field, BTW ;-)

It's not sad, though. What's sad is the mass delusion that believes
otherwise.

[Dan O]

On Apr 12, 6:04 am, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:58 am, sms88 <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4/11/2012 10:13 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>
> > > The sad thing is that to some extent, paramedics, doctors, nurses, and
> > > public safety officials are just like everybody else. They only appear
> > > to be experts.
>
> > That may be partially true. But all things are relative. With the
> > knowledge and credibility of the AHZs is close to zero, the paramedics,
> > doctors, nurses, and public safety officials look like geniuses. Almost
> > certainly you'll probably never hear one of them talking about gardening
> > helmets or foam hats.
>
> I did not know that the knowlwdge and the credibility of those who
> oppose hemet use or mandatory helmet use, was zero.
>

Close to zero - and yet they spout about as if...

> I think there are some who would not ever be convinced to wear a
> helmet no matter what srt of data was presented just as there are
> those who would not stop wearing a helmet no matter what data was
> shown. It seems o me that the helmet debate is a lot like either
> religious debates or political debates.
>

My head, your head, their heads...

[Dan O]

My ultimate test is whether it makes sense.

> I've seen the same split in other, non-bicycling debates: demagogues
> with no data on one side, people citing data and sources on the
> other. I go with the data. It's what changed me from a helmet
> promoter to a helmet skeptic.
>

Nothing at all wrong with trying to offer a better understanding of
how things are, and how they could be better. I would sooner try to
make helmets better than to simply dismiss their potential.

[Dan O]

On Apr 12, 8:51 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:19 am, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> > On 04-11-2012 13:32, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > > The helmet was darn uncomfortable and the sweat dripping into my
> > > eyesmade wearing it on my head hazardous as I kept blinking trying to
> > > clear the burning sweat. I finally took off the helmet and looped its
>
> > I've ridden in weather that made that happen. Never has my helmet
> > contributed. In fact, my helmet haas better ventilation than the
> > ball caps I wore before I decided I should set a good example for
> > the kids across the street.
>
> That has happened to me many times. The most common (and worst)
> incidents were when I climbed a hill and loaded the helmet's front
> sweat pad, then crested and began a fast descent. An eyeful of
> blinding sweat was very common.

That's what eyelids are for... and nerve endings that sense sweat
gathering and on its way to the eyes. "Very common" for you to get an
eyeful of sweat? I have on occasion, and yeah - it stings like a
mother and is blinding, but it usually only happens to me if I do
something weird to make it happen, and then I deal with it.

> I suspect the frequency of the
> problem depends on an individual's tendency to sweat,

<snip>

[JG]

"- that is, they let researchers conclude that helmets
are wonderfully effective, and that if everybody wears helmets when
biking, head injuries will drop remarkably."

Nonsense. Case control studies cluster around 1/3 reduction in
injuries. Hardly "wonderful". And no researcher asserts helmet
effectiveness in an accident rules its effectiveness as a health
measure in the general population, just as no time trend research
asserts the converse.

The absolute number of annual fatalities is low, and when reduced to
sober, adult, vehicular cyclists, even lower, so the number who might
be saved by a helmet is quite small. It is a perfectly reasonable
adult decision to accept that small risk as a personal preference.

"I go with the data."

Except that you don't. You go into contortions to deny that 1/3
figure and assert you are not eschewing _any_ protection by your
personal choice. Furthermore you insist that those of use who choose
to wear a helmet are engaged in conspiracy to denigrate cycling as
dangerous. Not clear if it's anything more than a narcissistic desire
to disagree with everyone.

JG

[Frank Krygowski]

JG wrote, rather anonymously:

> "- that is, they let researchers conclude that helmets
> are wonderfully effective, and that if everybody wears helmets when
> biking, head injuries will drop remarkably."
>
> Nonsense. Case control studies cluster around 1/3 reduction in
> injuries. Hardly "wonderful".

Without a doubt, the most commonly quoted helmet claim is reducing head
injuries by 85%. Granted, that was only one extremely faulty study, and
essentially the world record benefit claim. But it is the claim that's
driven most helmet promotion and helmet laws. That's Thompson & Rivara,
1989.

[BTW, I'm abbreviating citations in this post. If anyone wants the full
academic citation, let me know.]

But others? Thompson & Rivara 1996 claimed helmets reduced any head
injury by 69%, brain injury by 65%. Or to cover many at once, we could
look at Attewell's 2001 paper that meta-examined only case control
studies. It didn't give % reductions, but odds ratios. For head
injuries, the 13 case-control studies gave odds ratios of 0.24, 0.00
(!), 0.25, 0.08, 0.03, 0.61, 0.30, 0.51, 0.32, 0.32, 0.37, 0.64, 1.37
(!), for a combined total of 0.40. Of course, odds ratios aren't the
same thing as percent reductions, but they're claiming _much_ greater
than 1/3 reduction in head injuries based on the case-control data.

For those new to the topic, a major problem with a case-control study of
this type is that the participants must, by its very nature, be
self-selected in two ways: first, their choice of whether to wear a
helmet or not; second, their decision to go to the ER after a crash.
Self selection is scrupulously avoided in most medical studies because
it can pollute the results in ways that are harder to determine.

For one pertinent example, the 1987 kids who comprised T&R 1989 cases
and controls were seven times more likely to visit the ER after a bike
crash if they had been wearing a helmet. How could that be? Probably
the early-adopter parents had been scared by head injury propaganda, and
A) would not let their darlings ride without a helmet; and B) rushed
them to the ER if they happened to fall off their bike. "B" would also
be an effect of excellent insurance coverage; but it leads to lots of
helmeted kids with no significant injuries, distorting the benefit
calculations. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html

> And no researcher asserts helmet
> effectiveness in an accident rules its effectiveness as a health
> measure in the general population, just as no time trend research
> asserts the converse.

T&R '89: "Head injuries from bicycling are an important problem...
Safety helmets are effective... the time has come for a major campaign
to increase their use."

T&R '96: ".. strategies to decrease bicycling injury should focus on
increasing helmet use... by a combination of legislative and educational
approaches..."

Sachs, 1991: "We estimate that if all bicyclists had worn helmets ...
one death could have been prevented every day and one HI could have been
prevented every 4 minutes..."

Attewell 2001: "How much more evidence is required before helmet use
reaches the acceptance level of seat belts...?"

> The absolute number of annual fatalities is low, and when reduced to
> sober, adult, vehicular cyclists, even lower, so the number who might
> be saved by a helmet is quite small.

Correct.

> It is a perfectly reasonable
> adult decision to accept that small risk as a personal preference.

Especially when population time trend data shows the risk is not reduced
by helmet wearing. In fact, even some case control studies (the type
most favorable to helmet promotion) find no benefit. Crocker's 2010
study was one; when he controlled for alcohol use, he found no
significant helmet benefit, despite two attempts.

> "I go with the data."
>
> Except that you don't.

Again: I used to use a helmet faithfully, and promote their use by
others. The data changed my mind; I go with the data. Granted, one
can't just grab one or two papers and accept their conclusions
unthinkingly. One has to critically examine the data, the sources, the
methods and the conclusions.

> You go into contortions to deny that 1/3
> figure and assert you are not eschewing _any_ protection by your
> personal choice.

Is that what I said? If so, you might break your streak and post an
actual, direct quotation of what I said, showing which post it came
from. But as I recall, I've said many times that helmets will protect
against minor (i.e. unimportant) injuries.

> Furthermore you insist that those of use who choose
> to wear a helmet are engaged in conspiracy to denigrate cycling as
> dangerous. Not clear if it's anything more than a narcissistic desire
> to disagree with everyone.

I have repeatedly said that I don't care if someone wears a helmet, any
more than I care if they wear purple riding shorts. If you have a
quotation of me "insisting that those who choose to wear a helmet are
engaging in a conspiracy to denigrate cycling" post that too, please.

Alternately, quit building straw men.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-12-2012 23:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Apr 12, 7:37 pm, Wes Groleau<Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> Ya think? Or could it be that some people have learned to fake
>> citations, knowing that 99% of the listeners won't verify?
>
> When I put up a citation, I do it so people _can_ verify it. I've
> often posted direct links, and I've often suggested people visit their
> library to get help acquiring the ones that don't have direct links.

I said, "some people." Why do you assume I meant you?

--
Wes Groleau

Can we afford to be relevant?
http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-13-2012 10:42, Dan O wrote:
> My ultimate test is whether it makes sense.

That's how the "fat causes heart attacks" myth lasted so long.

[Dan O]

On Apr 13, 4:12 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 04-13-2012 10:42, Dan O wrote:
>
> > My ultimate test is whether it makes sense.
>
> That's how the "fat causes heart attacks" myth lasted so long.
>

I'm sorry, but this doesn't have enough information to make any sense
to me.

If you mean that people who don't know understand nutrition correlate
eating fat with being fat (overweight with excess body fat) , and
being overweight correlated with a higher risk of heart disease, and
this being a mistaken simplification, well - yeah; but that doesn't
detract from the merit of making sense of things with the imformation
you have. You only ever have what you have, but being open to
reconsideration of what makes sense as you have more is part of it.

(See? That's how I roll :-)

[Dan O]

On Apr 13, 2:14 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> calculations. Seehttp://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html

>
> > And no researcher asserts helmet
> > effectiveness in an accident rules its effectiveness as a health
> > measure in the general population, just as no time trend research
> > asserts the converse.
>
> T&R '89: "Head injuries from bicycling are an important problem...
> Safety helmets are effective... the time has come for a major campaign
> to increase their use."
>
> T&R '96: ".. strategies to decrease bicycling injury should focus on
> increasing helmet use... by a combination of legislative and educational
> approaches..."
>
> Sachs, 1991: "We estimate that if all bicyclists had worn helmets ...
> one death could have been prevented every day and one HI could have been
> prevented every 4 minutes..."
>
> Attewell 2001: "How much more evidence is required before helmet use
> reaches the acceptance level of seat belts...?"
>
> > The absolute number of annual fatalities is low, and when reduced to
> > sober, adult, vehicular cyclists, even lower, so the number who might
> > be saved by a helmet is quite small.
>
> Correct.
>
> > It is a perfectly reasonable
>
> > adult decision to accept that small risk as a personal preference.
>

> Especially when population time trend data...

That's Frank.

<snip>

>
> > You go into contortions to deny that 1/3
> > figure and assert you are not eschewing _any_ protection by your
> > personal choice.
>
> Is that what I said? If so, you might break your streak and post an
> actual, direct quotation of what I said, showing which post it came
> from. But as I recall, I've said many times that helmets will protect
> against minor (i.e. unimportant) injuries.
>
> > Furthermore you insist that those of use who choose
> > to wear a helmet are engaged in conspiracy to denigrate cycling as
> > dangerous. Not clear if it's anything more than a narcissistic desire
> > to disagree with everyone.

That's Frank.

>
> ... purple riding shorts...
>

That's Frank.

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:04:20 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> It seems o me that the helmet debate is a lot like either
> religious debates or political debates.

The so-called debate is a political battle fueled by religious fervor.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

[SMS]

On 4/13/2012 5:12 PM, Dan O wrote:

<snip>

> That's Frank.

The oft-misquoted Thompson & Rivara study never claimed that helmet
usage reduces head injury rates 88% or 85%. The study looked only at a
population of cyclists that experienced a crash and that received
medical attention for their injuries--a population that is an extremely
small subset of bicyclists. For the subset of cyclists that experienced
a crash requiring medical attention, and that was wearing a helmet, they
found a 63-88% reduction in the risk of head and brain injuries.

Thompson & Rivara used only well-conducted, case-controlled studies in
their analysis. No junk science or junk statistics. The problem with the
Thompson & Rivara study is that the results are often used out of
context by those lobbying for mandatory helmet laws. Put into context,
if 1 in 100 cyclists experiences a crash during their lifetime that
requires medical attention, then the reduction in the risk of head and
brain injuries that comes from everyone wearing a helmet is from
0.63-0.88%. The bottom line is that in the extremely unlikely event that
you're ever involved in a bicycle crash serious enough to require
medical attention, you're much better off with a helmet than without
one. No one would argue with that.

Ironically, the Thompson & Rivara study reports only on crashes where
the victim sought medical attention. They have no way of knowing how
many crashes there were where the presence of a helmet mitigated the
injuries to the point where medical attention was not necessary. Hence,
the 63-88% range given by Rivara and Thompson is almost certainly quite
conservative.

Paradoxically, whole population studies in countries that have adopted
an all-ages helmet law show a greater reduction in head injuries than
the Thompson & Rivara study would indicate, while at the same time
finding no change in cycling levels as a result of the legislation.
There are several possible reasons for this, but there have been no
studies to investigate the reasons.

What is true, is that the "85%" figure is trotted out way too often by
well-meaning, but clueless officials, who sometimes use it out of
context. But contrary to what the anti-helmet websites claim, the 85%
figure was arrived at by statistically and scientifically sound case
controlled research, which is a lot more than you can say for any of the
"studies" they are fond of quoting.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 4/8/2012 5:05 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> Ronko wrote:
>>
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
>> f=/c/a/2012/04/08/MNSE1O0DCI.DTL&tsp=1
>>
>> I listened to a local TV news broadcast on this last night that reported,
>> additionally, that a witness saw the drive texting right before this occurred.
>> A father and his two daughters were riding on the sidewalk.
>
> This is an example of why cars should not have safety equipment to
> protect the driver from injury.
>
> Chalo

A Cadillac Escalade is obscene. Letting a 17-year old loose in one is
even more obscene.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 4/9/2012 10:02 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> I agree that 17-year-olds are not the only ones texting while driving.
> And there's no magic age below which driving is dangerous, and above
> which driving is safe. It's not a binary thing. But the crash rate data
> vs. age is pretty clear, and recent advances in brain science indicate
> why. As I said, young brains are not fully developed, particularly
> regarding risk and responsibility.[...]

Well, most of the older driver's (and I use the term loosely) in the US
are vile, selfish sociopaths when they get behind the wheel, and have no
concern for the safety of anyone outside their vehicle.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 4/9/2012 10:56 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Apr 9, 8:13 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> Unless you believe that people drive in an unsafe manner, not caring
>>> whether or not they crash, because of the airbags, seat belts,
>>> side-impact reinforcements, collapsible steering column, padded dash,
>>> safety glass, etc.. Isn't that the whole "risk compensation" theory,
>>> that's already been completely discredited in terms of bicycle helmets?
>>> It probably has no basis in vehicles either.
>>
>> Chalo's proposal (to forbid safety equipment protecting the driver)
>> obviously would never fly, and obviously, he knows that. And it's not
>> the most extreme tongue-in-cheek version that's been proposed. Back
>> when steering wheel air bags were first called for by Ralph Nader, there
>> were articles pointing out that steering wheel spikes pointed at the
>> driver's heart would be more effective at reducing crashes.
>>
>> But regarding the issue of risk compensation: Let's examine those
>> extremes. SMS, would you drive exactly the same if your steering wheel
>> air bag were replaced by a sharp spike reaching within 6" of your heart?
>>
>> If you can honestly say it would make no difference to you, then you can
>> continue pretending risk compensation doesn't exist. Most people, I'm
>> sure, would drive much more carefully with the spike. People react both
>> to the knowledge of hazards, and to the knowledge of extra protection.
>
> A spike pointed at one's chest is far different than a car that merely
> lacks airbags. My driving did not change one bit when I transitioned
> to a car with air bags. Should I be even more wild in a car with side
> curtain aribags?

This is my choice for going fast, and it is decidedly lacking in passive
safety features.

<http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2006models/2006-Honda-CBR600F4ib.jpg>

There is risk compensation involved, since I know that I am putting
others in much less danger than if I went the same speeds in a 2-ton
steel cage.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 4/10/2012 1:40 PM, sms88 wrote:
> It's very similar with the whole helmet "debate" if you can even dignify
> it by calling it a debate anymore since the evidence that supports the
> efficacy of helmets is so overwhelming. When You look at a collection
> of statistics with a large enough sample size for the margin of error to
> be reasonable, you shake your head in bewilderment and sadness that
> there are people in the world that seem to make it their mission to lie
> about helmets.

Yes, we can only conclude that Scharf is mentally ill, since he
continually lies about bicycle foam hats.

[Frank Krygowski]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 04-12-2012 23:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 7:37 pm, Wes Groleau<Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>> Ya think? Or could it be that some people have learned to fake
>>> citations, knowing that 99% of the listeners won't verify?
>>
>> When I put up a citation, I do it so people _can_ verify it. I've
>> often posted direct links, and I've often suggested people visit their
>> library to get help acquiring the ones that don't have direct links.
>
> I said, "some people." Why do you assume I meant you?

:-) Why do you assume I thought you did?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I think SMS's post may be a contender for a misinformation world-record.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[JG]

Ah, the purple shorts of the helmet-wearing girly-men make an early
appearance. Just as well, as I have better things to do than
fighting
your FUD.(Danger! Danger! multiple studies with different setups and
different cases and different researchers get (somewhat) different
results. Biological systems don't behave like idealized engineering
problems! Whaa!) So just a couple points:

Sorry about the 1/3 figure; 2/3 is probably more to the point. I
took
a quick look at Attewell's percentages on Wikipedia. I should have
realized the "at least" was a reference to the low end of the
confidence interval. A bit sly and not unexpected as the page seems
to have been hijacked by AHZs.

Case control and time trend studies are incomparable. The former
attempt to isolate the protection offered by a helmet in a crash,
while the latter offer a (noisy) reading on total risk factors. You
cannot extract the protective effect of a helmet from a time trend
study so they have nothing to say about an individual decision to
wear
a helmet. (I just saw a quote from Robinson saying essentially that,
but I'm too lazy to go find it.)

Again, there is a difference between healthy skepticism and
attempting
to explain away every consideration. I just don't get it. Oh well.

[Hew Johns]

"Put into context,
if 1 in 100 cyclists experiences a crash during their lifetime that
requires medical attention, then the reduction in the risk of head
and
brain injuries that comes from everyone wearing a helmet is from
0.63-0.88%."

More precisely it is a reduction from 1% risk to 0.12-0.37% risk. Or
a 63-88% reduction in risk. Is this the "OR is deceiving!" complaint
I've seen but never understood? Surely even the mathematically
unsophisticated realize unhelmeted riders do not encounter a 100%
fatality rate in the event of a crash.