My (personal) take on helmets.

[Shadow]

I worked > 70 hr weeks for 20 years in an ER.

I have NEVER seen brain injuries in anyone from a bicycle accident.
Stitched up a few faces and scalps of drunks with bicycles. They were
not able to tell me if they were riding or walking when they fell,
even after they had sobered up enough to be discharged.

Almost all injuries were to the legs and specially the arms. Mostly
abrasions, a couple of fractures(mostly wrists). A few damaged toe
nails that needed removing, Brazilians tend to ride wearing
flip-flops.

The few deaths were caused by multiple organ trauma. IOW, getting hit
directly by fast moving vehicles. The head was probably involved, but
they all bled out from ruptured chests, livers. spleens etc. D.O.A.

Helmets are not mandatory here for bicycles. Practically no-one wears
one, except in competitions. These are sponsored by bike shops and
they make helmets mandatory. $$$$.

I don't wear a helmet, don't even own one.

What are the stats for brain injury for cyclists in your countries?
Just wondering...
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021

[AMuzi]

I don't know the stats but non-cyclists assume that we
cyclists have some mental problems. Hence policy.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:31:10 -0300, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

>
>I worked > 70 hr weeks for 20 years in an ER.
>
>I have NEVER seen brain injuries in anyone from a bicycle accident.
>Stitched up a few faces and scalps of drunks with bicycles. They were
>not able to tell me if they were riding or walking when they fell,
>even after they had sobered up enough to be discharged.
>
>Almost all injuries were to the legs and specially the arms. Mostly
>abrasions, a couple of fractures(mostly wrists). A few damaged toe
>nails that needed removing, Brazilians tend to ride wearing
>flip-flops.
>
>The few deaths were caused by multiple organ trauma. IOW, getting hit
>directly by fast moving vehicles. The head was probably involved, but
>they all bled out from ruptured chests, livers. spleens etc. D.O.A.
>
>Helmets are not mandatory here for bicycles. Practically no-one wears
>one, except in competitions. These are sponsored by bike shops and
>they make helmets mandatory. $$$$.
>
>I don't wear a helmet, don't even own one.

Me too. Never have, never will. If it's mandatory somewhere, I won't
ride there.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:31:10 -0300, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

>

That's odd:
"Traumatic Brain Injury Epidemiology in Brazil"
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1878875015013637>
claims:
"There were around 125,000 hospital admissions due to TBI a year, an
incidence of 65.7 admissions per 100,000 inhabitants per year."

There's no indication of what percentage or how many TBI were caused
by bicycle related injuries, but at 125,000 TBI admission, I would
expect to see a substantial number of bicycle related TBI injuries.

In the US:
"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009 - 2018"
<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm>
TBI rates can be found near the bottom of the article.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[AMuzi]

I don't know but USA has roughly 214,000 TBI with 69,500
fatal incidents and minuscule cyclist representation in
those groups.

https://www.cdc.gov/TraumaticBrainInjury/data/index.html

Some indicate that we have 2.8 million TBI per year but I
find that beyond belief. Same source conflates TBI with
'head injury' (scalp wound? hematoma?) citing "80,000
cycling related head injuries". Maybe, but again hard to accept.

https://www.spiveylaw.com/blog/review-of-bicyclist-brain-injuries-during-2023-brain-injury-awareness-month/

Brasil is 2/3 the population so your numbers above are not
out of line with CDC but drastically safer than Spivey's
unsourced claim.

[Shadow]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:19:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

> 80's tripped or slipped, probably the > 70's too. That's
way over the life expectancy here. Malnutrition and untreated chronic
diseases do not improve coordination. Also the pavements and streets
are full of potholes and trash.

20-29 year olds TBI mostly from drunken brawls, driving
without a seat belt at high speeds, assaults, motorcycles without a
helmet, deliberate murder etc.

I doubt many were bicycle related. None of the many I saw
were...

>
>In the US:
>"Emergency Department Visits for Bicycle-Related Traumatic Brain
>Injuries Among Children and Adults - United States, 2009 - 2018"
><https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019a1.htm>
>TBI rates can be found near the bottom of the article.

//
Rates were highest among adult males and children and adolescents aged
10-14 years.
//

When "showing how fast I can go" and "look, I'm riding on one
wheel" is more important than safety..
I'm sure Darwin played a hand there.

//
In 2018, 857 adult bicyclists died from traffic-related crashes in the
United States, the highest number in two decades. This discrepancy
might indicate that bicycle safety interventions have had some effect
on reducing some bicycle-related TBIs among adults, but more
comprehensive strategies are needed to protect cyclists from death and
the most severe types of injuries.
//

LOL. The number of TBI declined, but the overall number of
deaths INCREASED during the studied period. They should have looked
into why. I wonder how many of those accidents were caused by drivers
texting?

------------

I might fall off my bike and hit my head. More likely I'll
just break a bone in my limbs(again). Or completely tear the ruptured
ligament in my knee(it's already half off).
It's very hot here. Helmets make things worse.
IMHO

[Tom Kunich]

I have to keep going over this. https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html This shows that there is NO improvement in mortality due to wearing helmets.

But there IS improvement in GENERAL health by wearing helmets. Most bicycle accidents are fall-overs. This can cause serious injuries. Yet, these injuries are easily protected against with helmets. Think of it this way - if a car hits a pedestrian at 10 mph, there is rarely serious injuries. If a car hits a pedestrian at 20 mph the mortality rate is 5%. If a car hits a pedestrian at 30 mph the mortality rate is 50% and at 40 mph it is 80% These numbers are well known and published everywhere. So why, when people complain about getting speeding tickets do traffic engineers simply raise the speed limits? Wouldn't it be better to say "drive at the speed limit"? I have two schools in 3 blocks from my home and the speed limits are 35 mph!


The brunt is that you wear a helmet not to "save your life" but to save you from minor injuries that can spoil your day.

[Shadow]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:32:13 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have to keep going over this. https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html This shows that there is NO improvement in mortality due to wearing helmets.

Interesting.

>
>But there IS improvement in GENERAL health by wearing helmets. Most bicycle accidents are fall-overs. This can cause serious injuries. Yet, these injuries are easily protected against with helmets. Think of it this way - if a car hits a pedestrian at 10 mph, there is rarely serious injuries. If a car hits a pedestrian at 20 mph the mortality rate is 5%. If a car hits a pedestrian at 30 mph the mortality rate is 50% and at 40 mph it is 80% These numbers are well known and published everywhere. So why, when people complain about getting speeding tickets do traffic engineers simply raise the speed limits? Wouldn't it be better to say "drive at the speed limit"? I have two schools in 3 blocks from my home and the speed limits are 35 mph!
>
>
>The brunt is that you wear a helmet not to "save your life" but to save you from minor injuries that can spoil your day.

Fair enough. Though if I "fell over" my head would be the last
thing to hit the ground.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/15/2024 4:32 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> The brunt is that you wear a helmet not to "save your life" ...

Isn't that heresy? We're constantly told about lives saved by helmets.

Well, not the one in the thread about the Foothill Expressway fatality.
"A reporter observed at the scene a downed bicycle and a helmet."

... but to save you from minor injuries that can spoil your day.

So why not similar promotion and mandates of foam plastic protectors
against skinned knees and elbows? Road rash of "the lower extremities"
is the most common ER treated injury for bicyclists. Road rash of the
"upper extremities" is the second most common.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

In the U.S.:

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, in Victor G. Coronado et.
al., "Surveillance for Traumatic Brain Injury Related Deaths, United
States, 1997‑2007" Surveillance Summaries May 6, 2011 / 60(SS05); 1‑32
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6005a1.htm?s_cid=ss6005a1_w
shows, in table 10, that for 1997-2007 there were an average of just 325
bicyclist traumatic brain injury (TBI) fatalities per year. The total
annual TBI fatalities from all causes averaged 53014.

Activity Avg. TBI Fatalities/yr Percent of total
Motorists 7955 15%
Pedestrians 1825 3.4%
Motorcyclists 1361 2.6%
Bicyclists 325 only 0.6%

When, oh when, will motorists and pedestrians finally get the
life-saving haranguing that they need to FINALLY wear helmets?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Less about life and death and more about virtue signaling

[Radey Shouman]

Take care not to "fall under".

[Jeff Liebermann]

>States, 1997?2007" Surveillance Summaries May 6, 2011 / 60(SS05); 1?32

> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6005a1.htm?s_cid=ss6005a1_w
>shows, in table 10, that for 1997-2007 there were an average of just 325
>bicyclist traumatic brain injury (TBI) fatalities per year. The total
>annual TBI fatalities from all causes averaged 53014.
>
>Activity Avg. TBI Fatalities/yr Percent of total
>Motorists 7955 15%
>Pedestrians 1825 3.4%
>Motorcyclists 1361 2.6%
>Bicyclists 325 only 0.6%

The OP worked in an ER and therefore would be counting ER visits,
which do not necessarily result in hospital admissions. My numbers
from the CDC were counting bicycle related hospital admissions. Andrew
mentioned both overall TBI incidents and fatalities, but like my
numbers, could only estimate how many were bicycle related. Frank
concentrated on TBI fatalities. Perhaps if we were all using the same
metrics (standard of measurement), we might be able to extract some
useful conclusions?

>When, oh when, will motorists and pedestrians finally get the
>life-saving haranguing that they need to FINALLY wear helmets?

You already answered that question. When helmets become more
fashionable. I had hoped that the wearable computing fad would
inspire a flood of electronic devices worn on the head, where a
bicycle helmet would make a suitable mounting platform, but that
didn't happen. Perhaps the bicycle helmet mounted rear view camera
and display for cyclists will become a fashion statement:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=rear+view+camera+bicycle+helmet&tbm=isch>

[AMuzi]

Brain protection, meh. What you want is a better version of
reality, one with no crashes, and eye protection!

https://techviral.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Mark-Zuckerberg-Shown-Metas-VR-Headset-Prototypes.jpg

[Frank Krygowski]

We'd never agree on standards of measurement, in part because helmet
promoters use different types of hype for their claims. Within the past
week or so, we've seen a statement claiming that a helmet definitely
saved a life. We've had years of claims that helmets prevent brain
injuries. We've seen statements claiming helmets reduce poorly defined
"head injuries." We've seen statements praising helmets even if they
prevent some minor scratches and inconvenience.

The implied foundation of all those claims is that bicycling is an
outsized contributor to those problems. But no matter which claim you
address, that's false.

At its root, helmet promotion slanders bicycling by greatly exaggerating
its danger.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

You are quite correct. But the RARE time you fall off and hit your head can cause permanent and serious injuries. One of the first generation of carbon fiber forks fell apart as I was riding through a parking lot at only about 15 mph. I fell on my head (with a helmet on) and was knocked out for the amount of time it took for an Ambulance to travel 15 miles and load me in and take me more than half way back. When I got to the hospital the doctors turned me loose because I was walking and talking normally. Well, the blow had detached my eye and damaged my brain. Because of this I was walking and talking but I was not really conscious for two years. I was also having continuous seizures which further damaged my memory. Most neurologists are not well trained and my brother took me to a couple of neurologists who said that they didn't know what was wrong with me so they gave up and just figured that I was crazy. Finally a cop I know, grew worried because I was losing weight so rapidly (I couldn't even remember to eat) that he and his nurse wife figured that I had cancer. So they took me to Stanford Medical Center in Palo Alto, CA. After a full exam they found nothing and suggested a professor or neurology that had a small private practice. It took a lot of testing and working on pharmacological testing to discover the correct medications that finally brought me to consciousness.

What does this mean to you?

1. The helmet safety standards were originally developed by Bell Helmets. It was a theoretical standard - they considered that the damage from hitting your head was skull fractures. That was entirely incorrect and ended up with the foam used to decelerate the head to be too dense. All helmets until recently were built to these slightly modified standards.

2. Since the largest dangers of hitting your head is concussions, until recently and FINALLY Trek actually looked into it and designed the Wave Cell helmet that reduces the deceleration rate to that which is far less likely to cause a concussion. Unfortunately they patented it so no one else can make them so instead have started the entirely incorrect myth that the real problem is the helmet sticking to the ground and giving you a neck injury. This might be a problem with the dense foam but NOT if the foam is designed to reduce deceleration to that which eliminates concussion. The Trek helmets are marketed as Bontrager Wave Cell helmets (beware that older style Bontrager helmets are also being marketed.)

3. The MEDICAL diagnosis is STILL being emphasized as head injuries = skull facture with concussion - which is far more common and causes the most debilitating injuries - a far distant second unless you find a well educated neurologist.

I was lucky in having a friend that cared enough to do some real investigation - it might have been because he WAS a detective. Or it might have been concern for a friend. In any case - a helmet may not literally save your life but one of the wave cell helmets could save your lifespan.

[Tom Kunich]

Franik, do you always have to prove yourself stupid? You supposedly were trained as an engineer but you haven't a trace of knowledge of how the world works.

Motorists have the majority of head injuries because of sheer numbers and speed.
The others are less because they are a much smaller portion of the population or have enough feeling of vulnerability that as a matter of course while a auto driver worries about the price of his insurance and isn't all that careful, a pedestrian or cyclist worries about their LIVES and behaves dramatically different.

As an engineer that should have been obvious but as Frank Krygowski NOTHING is obvious. And you wonder why I haven't the slightest respect for you.

This is where you proclaim bike lanes as useless and that it is far better to take right away from speeding automobiles.

[Tom Kunich]

And you cannot recognize bullshit for what it is and instead think it is merely a disagreement.

[Shadow]

Head injuries (specially among the elderly) are often
sub-dural hematomas. No fractures required, just a hard bump to the
side of the head. Since the symptoms are not alarming, and tend to
VERY slowly get worse( a bit of confusion --> get better --> headaches
--> get worse ---> might have convulsions + might start acting odd),
it's quite commonly not diagnosed until someone decides you might have
a tumor and does a MRI.
Other "bleeds" can happen, but they are far less common after
slight trauma.
They sometimes stop bleeding spontaneously, but tend to
calcify. Calcifications --> convulsions, though the body "rounds them
off" over time so the convulsions usually become less frequent, even
without medication.

If you actually have a fracture you'll have the medical team
running around in circles screeching "code red" or whatever.

>
>I was lucky in having a friend that cared enough to do some real investigation - it might have been
>because he WAS a detective.

Well, the clues were all there. A decent public health system
would have helped. They should NEVER have discharged you so quickly if
you were unconscious that long.
It's a pity you had to suffer what you did.

[Tom Kunich]

As time goes on, riders who take chances fall enough to learn how to fall usually in a manner that they aren't injured much. Cry-gowski has never taken any chances so he does not have any idea that you can learn to fall safely. I would not hesitate to say that I haven't any question that he rides safely. But accidents are something that happens accidentally and is he ready for that?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 08:05:36 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>Brain protection, meh. What you want is a better version of
>reality, one with no crashes, and eye protection!
>
>https://techviral.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Mark-Zuckerberg-Shown-Metas-VR-Headset-Prototypes.jpg

Not good enough. There is no rear-view camera and heads up display.
Such devices are made for playing games and virtuous reality. Extra
points for a gyroscopic leveled and/or horizon tracking camera. I
want to see where the bicycle is going and coming from, not where my
head happens to be aiming.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:28:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/15/2024 11:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> The OP worked in an ER and therefore would be counting ER visits,
>> which do not necessarily result in hospital admissions. My numbers
>> from the CDC were counting bicycle related hospital admissions. Andrew
>> mentioned both overall TBI incidents and fatalities, but like my
>> numbers, could only estimate how many were bicycle related. Frank
>> concentrated on TBI fatalities. Perhaps if we were all using the same
>> metrics (standard of measurement), we might be able to extract some
>> useful conclusions?

>We'd never agree on standards of measurement, in part because helmet
>promoters use different types of hype for their claims.

We're not discussing "standards of measurement". We're discussing
injuries and possibly fatalities per miles or hours ridden. My
acerbic remarks were observations which demonstrate a general lack of
standardization in classifying bicycle accidents. When someone has an
axe to grind, they simply invent a new class of accident. Don't like
the numbers? No problem, just change the way the numbers are
represented or better yet, juggle what constitutes the population of
acceptable accident victims.

>Within the past
>week or so, we've seen a statement claiming that a helmet definitely
>saved a life. We've had years of claims that helmets prevent brain
>injuries. We've seen statements claiming helmets reduce poorly defined
>"head injuries." We've seen statements praising helmets even if they
>prevent some minor scratches and inconvenience.
>
>The implied foundation of all those claims is that bicycling is an
>outsized contributor to those problems. But no matter which claim you
>address, that's false.
>
>At its root, helmet promotion slanders bicycling by greatly exaggerating
>its danger.

Every sport has its inherent dangers. After all, it's not really a
sport without the risks and dangers. Who would attend a race or game
without the risk of carnage on the field? It's the smell of blood
that attracts the audience.

Every sport is surrounded by a mob of salesmen offering expensive
devices, clothing and designs which allegedly reduce the risks and
dangers. Just look at the elaborate protective uniforms and garments
worn by players and participants in many sports. There's nothing
unique about safety promoters in bicycling.

Therefore, I suggest you take a look at what players and participants
in other unsafe sports do about the problem. I have some opinions and
guesses, but I'll save those for when I'm better than half awake.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/17/2024 10:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:28:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 11:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> The OP worked in an ER and therefore would be counting ER visits,
>>> which do not necessarily result in hospital admissions. My numbers
>>> from the CDC were counting bicycle related hospital admissions. Andrew
>>> mentioned both overall TBI incidents and fatalities, but like my
>>> numbers, could only estimate how many were bicycle related. Frank
>>> concentrated on TBI fatalities. Perhaps if we were all using the same
>>> metrics (standard of measurement), we might be able to extract some
>>> useful conclusions?
>
>> We'd never agree on standards of measurement, in part because helmet
>> promoters use different types of hype for their claims.
>
> We're not discussing "standards of measurement". We're discussing
> injuries and possibly fatalities per miles or hours ridden. My
> acerbic remarks were observations which demonstrate a general lack of
> standardization in classifying bicycle accidents.

Choosing "per miles" or "per hours" is choosing a standard. (The other
possibility in use is "per trip." I've seen data on each of those.)

>> Within the past
>> week or so, we've seen a statement claiming that a helmet definitely
>> saved a life. We've had years of claims that helmets prevent brain
>> injuries. We've seen statements claiming helmets reduce poorly defined
>> "head injuries." We've seen statements praising helmets even if they
>> prevent some minor scratches and inconvenience.
>>
>> The implied foundation of all those claims is that bicycling is an
>> outsized contributor to those problems. But no matter which claim you
>> address, that's false.
>>
>> At its root, helmet promotion slanders bicycling by greatly exaggerating
>> its danger.
>
> Every sport has its inherent dangers. After all, it's not really a
> sport without the risks and dangers.

And it's a fallacy to classify most bicycling as "sport." That word
strongly implies competition; but only a tiny percentage of cyclists
ever enter any competition.

A tiny percentage of motorists enter races; but driving to the grocery
is not counted as a "sport."

A tiny percentage of walkers enter race walking competitions; but
walking in general is not counted as a "sport."

The classification of bicycling as a "sport" has been used to disparage
cycling. I've seen data tables that claim the "sport" of bicycling
causes more injuries than football. But there are immensely more
bicyclists than football players, immensely more hours spent bicycling
compared to football, and unlike football, almost none of those hours
involve any competition.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 23:36:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>And it's a fallacy to classify most bicycling as "sport." That word
>strongly implies competition; but only a tiny percentage of cyclists
>ever enter any competition.

Nonsense. There are many ways for bicyclists to compete that don't
involve shoulder to shoulder racing. I see king of the hill
competition on Strava, and many bicyclists simply compete with
themselves for faster speeds and longer distances.

[db]

I don't wear one either. I had a fall which damaged my shoulder
and I hit concrete with my cheek bone, but only got a bruise.
I read, a few years ago, that cyclist deaths are gradually
declining in New Zealand. At some point they introduced mandatory
helmets, and the graph of deaths against year shows no change in slope
for that year. I wouldn't mind finding that graph.
--
Dieter Britz

[Roger Merriman]

UK and America is generally focused on sport or leisure cycling. And to
further muddy the waters some commuters will aim for strava segments london
embankment or Richmond Park are two examples that come to mind!

This said while i will occasionally go for a segment etc, I’d classify
myself and others as leisure than sport riders.

Not sure about the numbers in terms of commuting vs leisure riders folks
who race are fairly low in numbers. Most race bikes (ie fast aggressive
road bikes) are bought to keep up with club mates or because folks like the
feel and for lots it’s a bit of denial that they can still hold that
position!

Ie they would be just as fast on a more relaxed position.

Roger Merriman

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:09:15 GMT, Roger Merriman <ro...@sarlet.com>
wrote:

I define "sport" pretty loosely. Is sailing a sport? Is skydiving?
target shooting? tossing frisbies?

[AMuzi]

On 2/17/2024 9:14 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 08:05:36 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> Brain protection, meh. What you want is a better version of
>> reality, one with no crashes, and eye protection!
>>
>> https://techviral.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Mark-Zuckerberg-Shown-Metas-VR-Headset-Prototypes.jpg
>
> Not good enough. There is no rear-view camera and heads up display.
> Such devices are made for playing games and virtuous reality. Extra
> points for a gyroscopic leveled and/or horizon tracking camera. I
> want to see where the bicycle is going and coming from, not where my
> head happens to be aiming.
>

And fighter pilots' headgear is linked to weapons aim. Some
cyclists could use that feature too.

https://www.wired.com/2015/09/helmet-will-make-f-35-pilots-missile-slinging-cyborgs/

[AMuzi]

Yes you're right but IMHO a minor haematoma or small skin
abrasion is not the same as severe brain injury or death.
One does wonder about aggregated totals for 'head injury'.
What was measured? Who knows?

[Roger Merriman]

I guess I’m differentiating between folks who are more casual and more
seriously into the hobby/leisure/sport.

Do notice that the MTB trail centres have signs at the trail heads asking
is this for you? I’d say I’d rely on folks to be sensible but I’ve
encountered a fairly terrified dog walker on a trail Center, who to be fair
had realised he shouldn’t be there!

Roger Merriman

[Jeff Liebermann]

Sigh. I had written a paragraph on the merits of a HUD (heads up
display) and helmet but decided that it would encourage the endless
firearms discussions that I was trying to reduce. So, I erased it
before posting.

One of the main features of the latest F-35 HUD is that takes input
from 6 infrared cameras that provide the pilot with views through the
walls of the cockpit and aircraft including to the rear, straight up
and straight down. I don't see much use for this feature on a
bicycle, unless the rider is inside an aero shell (fairing):
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycle+aerodynamic+shell&tbm=isch>

"Navy asks Lockheed Martin to provide electro-optical helmet-mounted
displays for F-35 combat jets"
<https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14298012/helmet-mounted-displays-f-35-combat-jets-electro-optical>
I don't know if this upgrade is available on current F-35 models.

Like the HUD, I can also suggest a few other gadgets that could be
added to the rider and bicycle that could improve situation awareness
and therefore safety. However, these would add a few grams to the net
weight and therefore would likely be labeled as heresy.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 23:36:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/17/2024 10:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Every sport has its inherent dangers. After all, it's not really a
>> sport without the risks and dangers.
>
>And it's a fallacy to classify most bicycling as "sport." That word
>strongly implies competition; but only a tiny percentage of cyclists
>ever enter any competition.

Sorry. Bad choice of words. Please replace "sport" with "activity".
That should include everything that might be done with or on a
bicycle, each of which has its own risks and dangers.

[Tom Kunich]

Frank, I've tried to explain to you that there is a giant difference between the way in which a car driver and a pedestrian or bicyclist treat dangerous drivers. I agree that a helmet can only cause minimal protection but isn't that enough for you?

[Tom Kunich]

Deiter, good to see you back again. As the sport of cycling increases and people grow to see bicyclist as more common (and with bike lanes that tend to keep most cyclists out of the way of car traffic) interactions with automobiles will indeed grow to be less. This is why only tiny numbers of cyclists in Amsterdam are hit by automobiles despite their lack of bicycle facilities. It is quite noticeable to me how much more polite people are driving around bicyclists', but every ride has some asshole of another taking far too close a pass. It is difficult to always take side or limited car travel roads and polite drivers are always appreciated.

[John B.]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 10:16:46 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 23:36:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2/17/2024 10:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> Every sport has its inherent dangers. After all, it's not really a
>>> sport without the risks and dangers.
>>
>>And it's a fallacy to classify most bicycling as "sport." That word
>>strongly implies competition; but only a tiny percentage of cyclists
>>ever enter any competition.
>
>Sorry. Bad choice of words. Please replace "sport" with "activity".
>That should include everything that might be done with or on a
>bicycle, each of which has its own risks and dangers.

Sporting Lady??
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sporting%20lady

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Am Sat, 17 Feb 2024 23:36:48 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net>:

>On 2/17/2024 10:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:28:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>> At its root, helmet promotion slanders bicycling by greatly exaggerating
>>> its danger.
>>
>> Every sport has its inherent dangers. After all, it's not really a
>> sport without the risks and dangers.

>And it's a fallacy to classify most bicycling as "sport." That word
>strongly implies competition; but only a tiny percentage of cyclists
>ever enter any competition.

Indeed. In Germany, only a miniscule percentage of all cyclists perform
cycling as sport. About 70 million adult people in Germany owned 82.8
million bicycles in 2022, more than one biycle per person.

<https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/154198/umfrage/fahrradbestand-in-deutschland/>
<https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Tabellen/bevoelkerung-altersgruppen-deutschland.html>

For comparison, our "national governing body of cycle racing in Germany"
German Cycling Federation or BDR (in German: Bund Deutscher Radfahrer)
only has about 150000 members. But even that figure is somewhat
misleading. While the BDR is member of UCI and UEC and so is part of the
professional competetive cycling sport industry/circus, it consists of
about 2400 separate, mostly tiny clubs which are more into organizing
touristic cycle tours than into competitive sports. Those clubs are
members of the BDR, have to adopt the BDR charta, but benefit by
outsourcing some organizational and administrative busywork, that way.

N.B. An unfortunate side effect is that all these small clubs are forced
to make helmets compulsory for all their rides, even for all those non
competetive touristic leisure rides they mostly do.

Anyway, only one in about five hundred adult cyclists is doing even the
first step of getting into competetive bicycling sports, and almost all
of these only do that to find company and having somebody else doing the
work necessary to to organized rides. Sport in the sense of climbing up
the competetive ladder doesn't have anything to do with it.

>
>A tiny percentage of motorists enter races; but driving to the grocery
>is not counted as a "sport."

Exactly. Ignoring speed limits isn't counted as "sport", either. Even
if some madmen think that it does.

On the other hand, that distinction only goes so far. There certainly
is a distinction between cycling instead of walking as a way to cover a
fixed distance with less effort and cycling as a way to enhance your
personal fitness, at least as a welcome side effect of having or wanting
to cover more distance with a fixed energy budget.

Most people also like to refer to the latter as sport because both the
means and the effect are similar. This is unfortunate because it
overlooks the fact that the motives and purposes are different.

The main purpose of competitive sport is to win, whatever the cost. Most
people riding a bicycle don't have any concept of "winning", because
there isn't somebody to compete against and because there is no price,
no competition goal, no jury.

The fact that you can use motivational mechanisms from competitive sport
to increase your own fitness, that gamification intents to motivate, is
not contradictory to this observation.

>
>A tiny percentage of walkers enter race walking competitions; but
>walking in general is not counted as a "sport."
>
>The classification of bicycling as a "sport" has been used to disparage
>cycling. I've seen data tables that claim the "sport" of bicycling
>causes more injuries than football. But there are immensely more
>bicyclists than football players, immensely more hours spent bicycling
>compared to football, and unlike football, almost none of those hours
>involve any competition.

And, curiously, while cycling is ubiquitious in Germany and is done in a
wide spectrum of ways, from riding old, ugly folding bikes on dangerous
bike paths to long distance commuting on racing bikes in fast traffic,
there are surprising few cycling casualities, in Germany, compared to,
say, people getting killed while using a ladder or stumbling on stairs
at home.


--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

[zen cycle]

There's that 4th grade reading comprehension again.
Even including 'sport' riders who compete against themselves or engage
in time-trial styles of competition results in a minuscule number of
individuals compared the overall number of people who engage in cycling
for any reason.

[Tom Kunich]

I more or less agree with you about defining "head injuries" I don't think that there are much difference in the way that helmet oritextiob us measured. After all, there is a federal standard.

[db]

On 18.02.2024 10.45, db wrote:
> On 15.02.2024 22.32, Tom Kunich wrote:

[...]

> I don't wear one either. I had a fall which damaged my shoulder
> and I hit concrete with my cheek bone, but only got a bruise.
> I read, a few years ago, that cyclist deaths are gradually
> declining in New Zealand. At some point they introduced mandatory
> helmets, and the graph of deaths against year shows no change in slope
> for that year. I wouldn't mind finding that graph.

I found it:
https://www.transport.govt.nz/statistics-and-insights/safety-annual-statistics/sheet/cycling-crashes
Helmets became mandatory Jan. 1 1994.
--
Dieter Britz

[db]

Here in Aarhus I feel quite safe but still have my reflexes
from riding in Australia, so I'm needlessly suspicious of
car drivers, who are very considerate. I believe in Copenhagen
it's cyclists who are a danger to each other, shouldering their
way past on narrow bike lanes.
--
Dieter Britz