Inflatable helmet, really
James
why not an inflatable helmet? Deflated to fit in your bag, and with a
few breaths, a ready to go head wearable airbag.
BTW, they're going to test a folding helmet made of thin plastic.
Hmm. Can't see that one really doing the business, but anything's
worth a try.
JS
(What was it Edison said? Something about finding 1000 ways not to
make a light bulb?)
Frank Krygowski
> Thinking about the Melbourne bicycle hire scheme and its lack of use,
> why not an inflatable helmet? Deflated to fit in your bag, and with a
> few breaths, a ready to go head wearable airbag.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/airbag-helmet.html
- Frank Krygowski
landotter
They just need to repeal the draconian helmet law.
raamman
Bell had an inflatable liner to help with fit and retention- worked
good too ( used twice; first time was the 4th ride I had after buying
it- it was destroyed, and the 2nd, a replacement a few years later ).
It's nice being alive
Chalo
>
> Bell had an inflatable liner to help with fit and retention- worked
> good too ( used twice; first time was the 4th ride I had after buying
> it- it was destroyed, and the 2nd, a replacement a few years later ).
> It's nice being alive
A quote from Neal Stephenson's book, _Cryptonomicon_:
--------------------
"Let's set the existence-of-god issue aside for a later volume, and
just stipulate that in some way, self-replicating organisms came into
existence on this planet and immediately began trying to get rid of
each other, either by spamming their environments with rough copies of
themselves, or by more direct means which hardly need to be belabored.
Most of them failed, and their genetic legacy was erased from the
universe forever, but a few found some way to survive and to
propagate. After about three billion years of this sometimes zany,
frequently tedious fugue of carnality and carnage, Godfrey Waterhouse
IV was born, in Murdo, South Dakota, to Blanche, the wife of a
Congregational preacher named Bunyan Waterhouse. Like every other
creature on the face of the earth, Godfrey was, by birthright, a
stupendous badass, albeit in the somewhat narrow technical sense that
he could trace his ancestry back up a long line of slightly less
highly evolved stupendous badasses to that first self-replicating
gizmo--which, given the number and variety of its descendants, might
justifiably be described as the most stupendous badass of all time.
Everyone and everything that wasn't a stupendous badass was dead."
--------------------
It's kind of cute to think that a half pound of packing material (or
in the OP's proposal, a whoopee cushion in the shape of a hat) could
compete with, or add siginficantly to, what Mr. Stephenson is talking
about here. Especially when those responsible for furnishing said
packing material are far more concerned with transient profit than
actual protection.
Chalo
Andre Jute
> On Sep 1, 8:18 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thinking about the Melbourne bicycle hire scheme and its lack of use,
> > why not an inflatable helmet? Deflated to fit in your bag, and with a
> > few breaths, a ready to go head wearable airbag.
>
> > make a light bulb?)
More precisely that after his experiments he knew a thousand
*filaments* which did not light up inside a globe.
> Bell had an inflatable liner to help with fit and retention- worked
> good too ( used twice; first time was the 4th ride I had after buying
> it- it was destroyed, and the 2nd, a replacement a few years later ).
> It's nice being alive
This is interesting. Was it merely for fit and retention or was there
a safety element too? Was it ventilated? Wasn't it hot?
Congratulations on being alive! More people should consider it; it is
really a very pleasant state of affairs.
Andre Jute
"The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be
protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo
Ricart Medina (who was talking about inordinately thick rubber soles
on his shoes rather than cycling helmets, please note)
Jeff Liebermann
<james.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(What was it Edison said? Something about finding 1000 ways not to
>make a light bulb?)
There are many positive things to be said about trying everything.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edisonian_approach>
Unfortunately, it's not very efficient or quick, but eventually does
get the job done. My personal version is also my URL. "Learn By
Destroying". If you haven't destroyed a bicycle trying to repair or
modify it, you don't understand how it works.
--
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
Nexus7
> Thinking about the Melbourne bicycle hire scheme and its lack of use,
> why not an inflatable helmet? Deflated to fit in your bag, and with a
> few breaths, a ready to go head wearable airbag.
At best that would be akin to your standard styrofoam hat without the
plastic/metal shell.
A shoulder-mount grid would be a better idea. To compete with the
inflatable helmet, it could be foldable.
Bernhard Agthe
On 09/02/2010 02:18 AM, James wrote:
...
> why not an inflatable helmet? Deflated to fit in your bag, and with a
...
There's a rumor about a helmet-maker's conference in lovely Austria.
They started arguing right away, who does the better job, until the
conference organizers (some Austrians) were so frustrated that they
bought a couple of melons at the local supermarket and took the helmet
makers to a bridge. They had the melons strapped into a helmet each,
dropped them from the bridge and - for good measure - dropped another
melon which they "strapped" into a wool hat. They went down and checked,
and the only "helmet" that had survived the fall was the wool hat. The
melons were all crushed, anyway.
The morale: Wear a wool hat and be happy... It's more comfortable,
anyway. The wool hat is also foldable ;-)
Ciao..
Bill Sornson
"Bernhard Agthe" <dark...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:i62svi$buv$1...@daniel-new.mch.sbs.de...
> There's a rumor about a helmet-maker's conference in lovely Austria. They
> started arguing right away, who does the better job, until the conference
> organizers (some Austrians) were so frustrated that they bought a couple
> of melons at the local supermarket and took the helmet makers to a bridge.
> They had the melons strapped into a helmet each, dropped them from the
> bridge and - for good measure - dropped another melon which they
> "strapped" into a wool hat. They went down and checked, and the only
> "helmet" that had survived the fall was the wool hat. The melons were all
> crushed, anyway.
Good thing the AHZs don't allow anecdotes!
> The morale: Wear a wool hat and be happy... It's more comfortable, anyway.
> The wool hat is also foldable ;-)
So if you were to bang your head against a wall or...I dunno, asphalt
pavement or concrete curb, you'd prefer a wool hat to a hard-plastic-shell
bike helmet?
Good luck with that.
BS (called)
Dan O
> "Bernhard Agthe" <dark2s...@gmx.net> wrote in message
Bill, I'm not about to perpetuate this topic (promise, I'm already
done for a while at least), but - since you won't see this anyway - i
think the answer to your question does depend on how hard you bang
it. It seems to me that a bump within the absorption parameters of
knit wool would be much better attenuated by that material than by a
hard plastic dome and relatively stiff styrofoam liner that might
transmit more of the energy and even resonate it to your skull.
MikeWhy
At each of two gates stands a man swinging a 12 lb sledge. The cattle chute
in front of you bifurcates, each path leading to a gate and a man with a
sledge. One side is issued ordinary bicycle helmets; the other, nothing. In
this bovine intelligence test, which do you choose? If you chose the hat,
you lose. The blow knocks you out cold, but still alive. You regain
consciousness as they gut and bleed you before tearing away your limbs with
sharpened carbide. The others, without the hat, left painlessly, not knowing
their fate. Today, it sucks to be you. You chose poorly, and you die
silently screaming your agony and anguish with your ruined lungs. As the
lights dim for the last time, you realize finally this had been your fate
all along. Curse the hat.
!Jones
Our local community college received a grant from the state DOT to
produce a safety film to educate people about bicycle safety;
actually, it was part of a larger project which included upgrading
bicycle transportation overall... I doubt anyone here would argue with
that, right?
So, our video production students started their project. They used
local kids from the school district as actors; of course, we had to
jump through all of the usual red tape regarding parental consent and
privacy. Those laws are there for a reason, so... we complied.
Oh, yeah... we also had to have liability insurance; our state law is
pretty strict about that sort of thing. But, here's the rub: the kids
had to wear helmets during filming or our carrier wouldn't touch it!
Our local chapter of "nuclear meltdown" (or whatever the name of that
group is) had an utter *fit*! It almost derailed the entire 200k
grant because it required community support.
Now, I have dealt with enough insurance underwriters to know that
these are people who simply do not have opinions; their decisions are
based on actuarial science and the preponderance of statistical
evidence... they don't give a rat's ass whether you wear a helmet or a
Bugs Bunny suit.
It's the same bit if you've ever been in the bicycle rental business.
No helmet -> no bicycle. It's that simple. If I'm the person renting
the bike, then I *must* make sure that you have signed the
acknowledgement stating that you understand that you have no personal
injury coverage if you ride sans helmet and that you, at least, are
wearing a properly fitted helmet when you ride off my property... the
underwriters did not flip a coin to get there; there is no discussion
about it.
Try participating in any organized bicycle event such as a race or a
rally without a helmet... you won't... period! This is an insurance
issue. You don't have to like it; you just have to comply or go ride
someplace else.
So, while anecdotal evidence such as melons dropped off of buildings
may make a funny story, it won't sway an actuary. As I said, they
don't *have* opinions... you gotta show those people the numbers.
Oh, yeah, we produced the video, anyway. The kids all received a free
helmet for their participation. We used a film clip of... "critical
mass" is their name... running lights, etc. and asked the kids what
they were doing wrong. "Why, they're not wearing helmets!" was the
first, unprompted answer. The cyclists are fit to be tied! I think
it's funny; they're absolutely livid!
Jones
James
> BTW, they're going to test a folding helmet made of thin plastic.
> Hmm. Can't see that one really doing the business, but anything's
> worth a try.
Here's the foldable helmet. I'd love to see the test results.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/folding-bike-helmet.php
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/lnwsas
JS.
James
> The morale: Wear a wool hat and be happy... It's more comfortable,
> anyway. The wool hat is also foldable ;-)
What to do in summer? 40 deg. C is not the conditions for a wool hat,
sorry.
BTW, I have worn a wool hat while working under the car, under the
house, in the roof space, etc. Any confined dark space, it's handy to
bump your head with a bit of cushioning to prevent otherwise painful
bruises.
JS.
Peter Cole
Long hair can present problems, too. I wound mine around the caster of
my creeper when I was home alone under a jacked up car. I couldn't move
or even adjust my (uncomfortable, which shortly became unbearable)
position. I had to tear it off (mostly from the caster), a few strands
at a time until I was free. Rotating power tools are even more
dangerous. I keep a knit cap in my toolbox. Wool is much better than
synthetics, particularly if you do any welding, or even grinding.
!Jones
The motorcycle bunch has been doing that for years in areas with
mandatory helmet laws. Also, see faux seat belts.
I used to wear my helmet on my knee back in the '60s... the law said I
had to be wearing it, but it didn't say where. Cop gave me a ticket,
anyway, and made me put it on my head.
A mile down the road, I dropped the bike and busted my kneecap!
(I *swear* that's true!)
Jones
James
> The motorcycle bunch has been doing that for years in areas with
> mandatory helmet laws. Also, see faux seat belts.
>
> I used to wear my helmet on my knee back in the '60s... the law said I
> had to be wearing it, but it didn't say where. Cop gave me a ticket,
> anyway, and made me put it on my head.
>
> A mile down the road, I dropped the bike and busted my kneecap!
>
> (I *swear* that's true!)
>
> Jones
Wow! That's unusual. Frank seems to think helmets save knees.
Curiously not yours ;-)
JS.
Tom Sherman °_°
Excluding the aramid fiber fabrics, such as Nomex™, which are more fire
resistant than wool.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Michael Press
Bernhard Agthe <dark...@gmx.net> wrote:
Burn him!
[mutter mutter mutter]
Give him a fair trial.
Then burn him!
--
Michael Press
bjw
That looks like a design concept (like a concept car)
not an actual thing that would go into production from
a company trying to make protection gear.
There is a real folding helmet for rock climbing:
http://www.edelrid.de/index.php?id=268&lang=en&option=com_content&task=view
I don't think it's very popular.
Not all rock climbers wear helmets (it depends on
the situation) but they don't seem to get into as
big ideological flamewars about it. Possibly this
is because few of them are interested in arguing
about whether or not climbing is dangerous.
Ben
Chalo
>
> !Jones wrote:
> >
> > I used to wear my helmet on my knee back in the '60s... the law said I
> > had to be wearing it, but it didn't say where. Cop gave me a ticket,
> > anyway, and made me put it on my head.
> >
> > A mile down the road, I dropped the bike and busted my kneecap!
> >
> > (I *swear* that's true!)
>
> Curiously not yours ;-)
According to what I have read, it's Thompson, Rivara, & Thompson who
believe helmets save knees. But Frank is quick to remind us of that,
just so we can admire what insightful researchers TR&T are.
Chalo
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>On 09/02/2010 02:18 AM, James wrote:
>...
>> why not an inflatable helmet? Deflated to fit in your bag, and with a
>...
>
>There's a rumor about a helmet-maker's conference in lovely Austria.
>They started arguing right away, who does the better job, until the
>conference organizers (some Austrians) were so frustrated that they
>bought a couple of melons at the local supermarket and took the helmet
>makers to a bridge. They had the melons strapped into a helmet each,
>dropped them from the bridge and - for good measure - dropped another
>melon which they "strapped" into a wool hat. They went down and checked,
>and the only "helmet" that had survived the fall was the wool hat. The
>melons were all crushed, anyway.
Here's a 2nd grade experiment that suggests otherwise.
Will a bike helmet protect a melon better than no bike helmet?
<http://sites.google.com/site/djangoscienceproject/django-s-2nd-grade-science-experiment/django-s-2nd-grade-science-experiment>
<http://sites.google.com/site/djangoscienceproject/Home/images>
5ft drop onto concrete. I suspect that the bridge drop was a bit
higher. Next test is to drop one from an airplane, and measure the
size of the crater.
Neither test group ate the melons. Do bicyclists hate melons?
>The morale: Wear a wool hat and be happy... It's more comfortable,
>anyway. The wool hat is also foldable ;-)
Moral: Brainwash early and often.
Tom Sherman °_°
> James wrote:
>>
>> !Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> I used to wear my helmet on my knee back in the '60s... the law said I
>>> had to be wearing it, but it didn't say where. Cop gave me a ticket,
>>> anyway, and made me put it on my head.
>>>
>>> A mile down the road, I dropped the bike and busted my kneecap!
>>>
>>> (I *swear* that's true!)
>>
>> Wow! That's unusual. Frank seems to think helmets save knees.
>> Curiously not yours ;-)
>
> believe helmets save knees. But Frank is quick to remind us of that,
> just so we can admire what insightful researchers TR&T are.
The World's Greatest Expert™, Steven M. Scharf, tells us Thompson,
Rivara, Thompson is a valid study, so it must be so.
</sarcasm> [1]
[1] For André Jute and Michael Press, this is NOT a quote of previously
posted text.
Frank Krygowski
More accurately: Thompson, Rivara and Thompson made no claim about
knees (or rather, leg injuries). They claimed their data and
calculations showed that helmets were so wonderful, they prevented 85%
of head injuries.
Dr. Dorothy Robinson asked for and was given their complete data set.
Her PhD and professional specialty is statistics. She used their same
data and calculation techniques to analyze leg injuries, and found
that their techniques also "proved" helmeted kids had about 75% fewer
leg injuries.
The claim that the helmets prevented leg injuries is tongue in cheek,
of course. Her real point is that the "cases" and "controls" in the
T&R study were so obviously different in so many ways that nothing of
value can be determined by their data. The study was totally
incompetent.
But that doesn't keep helmet promoters from quoting it's ridiculous
conclusion. Neither does a lack of corroboration in over 20 years.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> Oh, yeah... we also had to have liability insurance; our state law is
> pretty strict about that sort of thing. But, here's the rub: the kids
> had to wear helmets during filming or our carrier wouldn't touch it!
You should have looked for a different carrier. There are plenty who
will. Our club has perfectly fine insurance with no helmet
requirement. In fact, LAB's suggested disclaimer for a LAB sanctioned
event has no mention of a helmet requirement, last I checked. Here's
their FAQ on insurance:
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/insurance_faq2009.pdf
> Now, I have dealt with enough insurance underwriters to know that
> these are people who simply do not have opinions; their decisions are
> based on actuarial science and the preponderance of statistical
> evidence... they don't give a rat's ass whether you wear a helmet or a
> Bugs Bunny suit.
Then the company providing insurance coverage through the largest
biking organization in the country must not think much of helmets!
> It's the same bit if you've ever been in the bicycle rental business.
> No helmet -> no bicycle. It's that simple.
Another fallacy. My wife and I were recently on Mackinac Island with
our bikes. It's a small, completely car-free island in Lake Huron, a
noted vacation spot. Bikes absolutely dominate the roads, and there
are many bike rental shops. Helmets are not mandatory, a majority of
people don't use them, and while the bike rental places make them
available, there is no requirement by those shops to use them.
I talked with a local politician/activist. He brought up the issue of
helmets, and said he'd like to see a mandatory helmet law, but that
the bike rental places were adamantly against it. Why? Because they
said it would kill their businesses.
They probably know their customers, and they probably feel even more
strongly now, if they've seen the reports on the dismal failures of
Australia's bike share programs, compared to those in non-MHL
countries.
> Try participating in any organized bicycle event such as a race or a
> rally without a helmet... you won't... period! This is an insurance
> issue. You don't have to like it; you just have to comply or go ride
> someplace else.
False, again. I ran our club's century for seven or eight years (I
forget which) with no helmet requirement. Our club's insurance does
not have that requirement when covering an event. The club members
now running the same event do require it, but that's their choice, not
determined by insurance.
> We used a film clip of... "critical
> mass" is their name... running lights, etc. and asked the kids what
> they were doing wrong. "Why, they're not wearing helmets!" was the
> first, unprompted answer.
So the kids learned that violations of all road rules don't matter.
All that matters is hat style.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
dont make me
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>More accurately: Thompson, Rivara and Thompson made no claim about
>knees (or rather, leg injuries). They claimed their data and
>calculations showed that helmets were so wonderful, they prevented 85%
>of head injuries.
Well, anyone who claims that post facto data "prove" any causal
relationship will believe that roosters cause the sunrise.
There are good data that show correlation with helmet use and a
reduction in closed head injuries. This is why you can't rent a
bicycle without one... a helmet, I mean, not a closed head injury. An
insurance underwriter could GAF less whether you wear a helmet or a
feather in your jockey strap if it doesn't cut into the bottom line of
the risk. Underwriters aren't into an academic discussion.
Jones
Jay Beattie
You could always cut your hair and avoid these problems. It's like
all the anguish over cats in bed. The one thing a helmet is good for
is preventing scalp injuries. -- Jay Beattie.
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You should have looked for a different carrier. There are plenty who
>will. Our club has perfectly fine insurance with no helmet
>require...
Oh, I doubt it.
I travel around Usenet, seldom lingering long in any particular group.
I just came from a strange land where they're arguing whether or not
the holocaust actually happened at all.
As I recall, the last time I was through here, there was a silly
helmet argument going on... and, it seems, I recall your posting
handle; I could be wrong and I don't care enough to look it up. Is
this still the same argument?
But, ya know, if I recall a posting handle from the last time I passed
through six months ago, then the person is either *very* good or a
memorable moron. Which side of that dichotomy do you think applies to
you, Frank?
I'm sorry, but anyone who would argue that getting some kind of
dissipating material between your body and an impacting mass is a bad
idea simply lacks common sense. Any "study" that finds that impact
dissipation does not mitigate the impact is a study conducted by an
idiot; I don't need to read it to know that. It's not science; it's
just basic common sense and a knowledge of how stuff works. Water
runs downhill, Frank... get over it.
Now, I'm aware that I haven't convinced you and that's fine. I am not
of the group that stakes out any particular ground and defends it
against all comers. I never felt the calling to refute every nitwit I
met, so... have a nice day.
Frank Krygowski
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:30:15 -0700 (PDT), in alt.war.vietnam Frank
>
> >More accurately: Thompson, Rivara and Thompson made no claim about
> >knees (or rather, leg injuries). They claimed their data and
> >calculations showed that helmets were so wonderful, they prevented 85%
> >of head injuries.
>
> Well, anyone who claims that post facto data "prove" any causal
> relationship will believe that roosters cause the sunrise.
Did you understand what I wrote about Robinson's investigation of
T&R's data?
>
> There are good data that show correlation with helmet use and a
> reduction in closed head injuries. This is why you can't rent a
> bicycle without one... a helmet, I mean, not a closed head injury.
And do you not understand that what you claim is false? You _can_
rent a bicycle without a helmet. I was recently in a place where that
was common.
BTW, the various bike share schemes instituted in cities around the
world have no helmet requirements. That includes (IIRC) Paris,
Stockholm, Quebec City, Washington DC, etc.
The notable exception is Melbourne, Australia, whose bike share scheme
seems to be failing. That's the one that has a mandatory helmet law.
They say they're expecting people to carry bike helmets all the time
just in case they decide to spontaneously use one of the rental
bikes. And they claim this shouldn't dissuade any potential bike
users.
> An
> insurance underwriter could GAF less whether you wear a helmet or a
> feather in your jockey strap if it doesn't cut into the bottom line of
> the risk. Underwriters aren't into an academic discussion.
Any comments about our bike club's underwriters, or about LAB's? How
about whoever is insuring those bike rental places I mentioned
earlier, that don't require helmets?
- Frank Krygowski
Bill Sornson
"!Jones" <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qagb86dfrjveiehs0...@4ax.com...
Come on back in a year or three. Frank'll still be at it.
Sad, really. BS
>
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:44:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
> Krygowski<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
To answer your question of July 12, 2009 [2], yes and no.
>> You should have looked for a different carrier. There are plenty who
>> will. Our club has perfectly fine insurance with no helmet
>> require...
>
> Oh, I doubt it.
>
On any basis besides being argumentative?
> I travel around Usenet, seldom lingering long in any particular group.
> I just came from a strange land where they're arguing whether or not
> the holocaust actually happened at all.
>
> As I recall, the last time I was through here, there was a silly
> helmet argument going on... and, it seems, I recall your posting
> handle; I could be wrong and I don't care enough to look it up. Is
> this still the same argument?
>
> But, ya know, if I recall a posting handle from the last time I passed
> through six months ago, then the person is either *very* good or a
> memorable moron. Which side of that dichotomy do you think applies to
> you, Frank?
>
Troll much?
> I'm sorry, but anyone who would argue that getting some kind of
> dissipating material between your body and an impacting mass is a bad
> idea simply lacks common sense.
Rotational brain injuries, anyone?
> Any "study" that finds that impact
> dissipation does not mitigate the impact is a study conducted by an
> idiot; I don't need to read it to know that. It's not science; it's
> just basic common sense and a knowledge of how stuff works. Water
> runs downhill, Frank... get over it.
>
I hope you are not doing any design work on anything significant. Your
statement is so obviously over-simplistic there is no need to comment
further.
> Now, I'm aware that I haven't convinced you and that's fine. I am not
> of the group that stakes out any particular ground and defends it
> against all comers. I never felt the calling to refute every nitwit I
> met, so... have a nice day.
>
Have anything useful to contribute?
[1]
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/77036770714dc5b4?hl=en&dmode=source>.
[2]
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/86fff48b6c3efd66?hl=en&dmode=source>.
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Did you understand what I wrote about Robinson's investigation of
>T&R's data?
No; actually, I didn't read it. Sorry.
!Jones
°_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>To answer your question of July 12, 2009 [2], yes and no.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Tom Sherman °_°
Yes - I moved to Iowa. [1]
No - I will NOT marry you.
[1] Same gender marriages are legal in Iowa.
Frank Krygowski
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:44:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
>
> >You should have looked for a different carrier. There are plenty who
> >will. Our club has perfectly fine insurance with no helmet
> >require...
>
> Oh, I doubt it.
... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? The
one with no helmet requirement?
How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
helmet requirement?
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/sample_waiver.pdf
A completely closed mind certainly saves a lot of difficult thinking,
doesn't it?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Come on back in a year or three. Frank'll still be at it.
And Sornson will still not have learned anything.
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
> On Sep 7, 1:07 am, !Jones <swsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:44:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
>
> > Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >You should have looked for a different carrier. There are plenty who
> > >will. Our club has perfectly fine insurance with no helmet
> > >require...
>
> > Oh, I doubt it.
>
> ... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? The
> one with no helmet requirement?
>
> How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
>
> A completely closed mind certainly saves a lot of difficult thinking,
> doesn't it?
There are no policy documents at that site -- no coverage form,
endorsements, exclusions, etc. God only knows what the GL policy does
or does not cover and whether there is any exclusion or limitation on
coverage if the club does not get a waiver. An "FAQ" is not an
insurance policy.
Event policies often have provisions that there is no coverage if the
insured did not make a "good faith" effort to get liability waivers
from all participants. Some are even more Draconian.
The whole purpose of the liability waiver is to disclaim liability --
so the fact that a waiver does or does not mention helmets really
makes no difference. The USCF waiver does -- but it also states the
no-drug policy. The USCF's waiver form has a statement of rules aspect
to it. http://www.usacycling.org/forms/rider_release.pdf
-- Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
> On 9/7/2010 6:08 AM, Exclamation Point Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:38:13 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman
>> °_°<twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>>
>>> To answer your question of July 12, 2009 [2], yes and no.
>>
>> I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
>>
> That is why I included the link.
>
> Yes - I moved to Iowa. [1]
>
> No - I will NOT marry you.
>
> [1] Same gender marriages are legal in Iowa.
>
just wait until they are mandatory.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
> On Sep 7, 7:57 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? The
> > one with no helmet requirement?
>
> > How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
> > helmet requirement?http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/sample_waiver.pdf
>
> endorsements, exclusions, etc. God only knows what the GL policy does
> or does not cover and whether there is any exclusion or limitation on
> coverage if the club does not get a waiver. An "FAQ" is not an
> insurance policy.
It's correct that those documents are not the actual insurance
policies. However, whether helmets are required certainly qualifies
as a Frequently Asked Question. It may be the _most_ Frequently Asked
Question. I can't imagine such a requirement, if it existed, would
not be mentioned in their FAQ document and in their suggested waiver
form.
You mention USCF's helmet requirement. Is that on their waiver form,
or not?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> !Jones <swsm...@hotmail.com> considered Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:06:49
> -0500 the perfect time to write:
> > An
> >insurance underwriter could GAF less whether you wear a helmet or a
> >feather in your jockey strap if it doesn't cut into the bottom line of
> >the risk. Underwriters aren't into an academic discussion.
>
> Of course, people who make uninformed or just plain ignorant decisions
> to require them for events like to blame insurance companies, but they
> are mostly lying about it to evade responsibility for their decisions.
For an exactly parallel situation, we've had people complain from time
to time about being refused service at drive up windows, supposedly
based on insurance policies. And we've had people who successfully
fought those policies report that the insurers had no such anti-bike
policies.
Such policies may exist in some cases. But in other cases, they're
invented for use as smokescreens.
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
>>> An
>>> insurance underwriter could GAF less whether you wear a helmet or a
>>> feather in your jockey strap if it doesn't cut into the bottom line of
>>> the risk. Underwriters aren't into an academic discussion.
> Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>> That is why insurance companies don't generally require helmets.
>> Of course, people who make uninformed or just plain ignorant decisions
>> to require them for events like to blame insurance companies, but they
>> are mostly lying about it to evade responsibility for their decisions.
Frank Krygowski wrote:
> For an exactly parallel situation, we've had people complain from time
> to time about being refused service at drive up windows, supposedly
> based on insurance policies. And we've had people who successfully
> fought those policies report that the insurers had no such anti-bike
> policies.
>
> Such policies may exist in some cases. But in other cases, they're
> invented for use as smokescreens.
I was told that at a bank once. "Insurance" my ass. I laid
my bike flat, blocking the driveup lane, walked inside and
withdrew my full balance, closing the account. Now I bank
with a locally owned entity, several of whose officers are
cyclists, where I regularly ride right up to the teller gate
in the lobby.
Problem solved.
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? The
>one with no helmet requirement?
>
>How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
>helmet requirement?
>http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/sample_waiver.pdf
>
>A completely closed mind certainly saves a lot of difficult thinking,
>doesn't it?
>
>- Frank Krygowski
Of course I won't read a link. If I had to read every link nitwits
post, I'd spend my days doing scant else, I say! I'm immune to that
old troll.
Here's my philosophy, Frank: if you value the integrity of your head
as much as *I* value the integrity of your head, then you may damn
well wear anything you please... wear Mickey Mouse ears for all I
care.
I am convinced that egg cartons work better than eggs in a paper bag.
Now, if you put an egg carton in the path of a tractor and drive over
it, then, I suggest, you will have proven something... whatever that
is. My guess is that all 12 eggs will be smashed into an omelet and
that you will find no statistically significant (p>= 0.005) difference
between eggs in he carton and the eggs in the paper bag. I guess
you've proven that tractors make good omelets... I dunno.
My point here, Frank, is that, if a person is on a collision course
with some inelastic mass (i.e. concrete,) then that person would
probably prefer that some impact dissipating material be inserted
between their vital organs (i.e. their head) and the inelastic mass.
If you disagree that this is a good idea, then... groovy. (Guess how
much *I* value your head!) I don't place much value on your feet,
either... thus, you may jolly well bicycle barefoot if'n it pleases
you..
Now, do fuck off. I discern that I'm talking to an idiot and I don't
usually do that.
Jones
!Jones
Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>There are no policy documents at that site -- no coverage form,
>endorsements, exclusions, etc. God only knows what the GL policy does
>or does not cover and whether there is any exclusion or limitation on
>coverage if the club does not get a waiver. An "FAQ" is not an
>insurance policy.
>
>Event policies often have provisions that there is no coverage if the
>insured did not make a "good faith" effort to get liability waivers
>from all participants. Some are even more Draconian.
>
>The whole purpose of the liability waiver is to disclaim liability --
>so the fact that a waiver does or does not mention helmets really
>makes no difference. The USCF waiver does -- but it also states the
>no-drug policy. The USCF's waiver form has a statement of rules aspect
>to it. http://www.usacycling.org/forms/rider_release.pdf
>
>-- Jay Beattie.
This usually boils down to exactly what is covered and under what
conditions. If the sponsor has to provide personal injury liability
for the contestants, then helmets are a non-negeotible fact of life.
I'm watching the fallout from that nasty California event where the
OHV lost control on the jump and killed a few spectators... I'll bet
you see some significant changes there and for good reason! It has
become obvious that the official competition sponsors didn't have
personal injury coverage. Right now, the plaintiffs are looking for
someone with deep pockets to sue. They're trying to sue the
Department of the Interior; however, I doubt it'll fly. If I were
Toyota, I'd be scared... *very* fucking scared! because they were one
of the sponsors! I assure you, they're the next target because the
actual OHV club has no assets beyond membership dues.
As to Frank's club: they probably don't have many assets, either...
I'll bet that they don't own a clubhouse, so who cares? Sue their sox
off and that's all you'll get. If he wants Cannondale, Profile, or
QBP to put their name on it, he'll need a solid carrier of
liability... and these people will require helmets whether he likes it
or not. They also require an EMS unit on site, and lots of other
expensive stuff. Anyone who has ever organized an event well knows
that the liability insurance is, by far and away, the greatest cost.
Jones
Bill Sornson
!Jones
<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>Oh, yeah... we also had to have liability insurance; our state law is
>>pretty strict about that sort of thing. But, here's the rub: the kids
>>had to wear helmets during filming or our carrier wouldn't touch it!
>>Our local chapter of "nuclear meltdown" (or whatever the name of that
>>group is) had an utter *fit*! It almost derailed the entire 200k
>>grant because it required community support.
>
>Use a different insurer. Only a few are that clueless.
Well, most of them are that clueless, actually. Besides, if you work
for a corporate entity, then you'd best "love the one you're with"
because they have an exclusive contract. The college isn't going to
kick the contract because a few students don't like it... the same
outfit does our plush health insurance package and *that* is a
multi-million dollar deal.
Love it or leave it... and we ain't about to leave it.
Jones
!Jones
<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>OK, cite it then - I've never seen any that can't be as easily
>debunked at the TR&T "study".
I'm quite sure that *I* never mentioned such a study.
If you float about Usenet, you'll see arguments that hot water freezes
more quickly than cold water. (I assume that you're familiar with
Newton's laws of cooling.) You'll see all sorts of "studies" cited.
I can cite a study that shows that the world is flat (P<=0.05) ...
that water flows uphill ... that more people with guns means fewer
people will be shot... that the holocaust is an historical fraud. I
can easily "debunk" all of the studies showing harmful effects of
tobacco use... so what? If you want to smoke, then smoke.
If you introduce an elastic material into the point of an inelastic
collision, you dissipate the force... that's simple physics, dude!
That's mechanics 101.
Jones
Jay Beattie
The USCF's waiver form mentions helmets and equipment and drugs. It
is in the last third of the form, IIRC.
A helmet provision in a liability policy does not really make sense.
Why would a liability insurance company care about avoiding/reducing
liability for head injuries as opposed to all risk of bodily injury?
That's why it makes sense to require waivers.
Maybe there are some insurers who consider helmet use as part of the
underwriting process and premium calculation and will refuse to write
a promoter or organization who does not require helmets at events --
or will jack up premium. I don't know, but I doubt a helmet
provision ever appeared as a coverage exclusion in an event policy.
As for FAQs and insurance, it is my experience that most people don't
even know what questions to ask when it comes to liability insurance.
I see sophisticated business buying the wrong type of coverage or
policies that are so riddled with exclusions that they are worthless.
Some brokers do not even understand the products they sell. On the
flip side, some of my insurance clients still use crappy ISO forms
that provide unintended coverage.-- Jay Beattie.
!Jones
> For an exactly parallel situation, we've had people complain from time
> to time about being refused service at drive up windows, supposedly
> based on insurance policies. And we've had people who successfully
> fought those policies report that the insurers had no such anti-bike
> policies.
Well, people who maintain "drive up" facilities really don't want
pedestrians and cyclists getting in their primary customers' way.
Banks are private property and, since we live in a free country, are
able to run their business as they see fit. The same goes for the
"drive up" window at MacDonald's burger joint... if I don't like it,
then I can eat elsewhere. I doubt that they're "anti-bike" so much as
their process is designed for auto traffic. They're willing to
sacrifice your business to avoid slowing down the stream of
automobiles. Face it, dude... MacDonald's will do far more business
from cars than it will from bicycles, so you and I are expendable to
them.
For an exactly parallel situation, I don't care what you wear... wear
a Bozo suit if you want... cycle naked, sheeze! On *my* head, I
choose to wear a helmet; however, I do *not* demand that you do
likewise... further, I do not give a good fuck whether you like my
choice or not.
Now... I'm done. How 'bout you?
Jones
Jay Beattie
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:35:39 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Jay
>
>
>
>
>
> Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> >There are no policy documents at that site -- no coverage form,
> >endorsements, exclusions, etc. God only knows what the GL policy does
> >or does not cover and whether there is any exclusion or limitation on
> >coverage if the club does not get a waiver. An "FAQ" is not an
> >insurance policy.
>
> >Event policies often have provisions that there is no coverage if the
> >insured did not make a "good faith" effort to get liability waivers
> >from all participants. Some are even more Draconian.
>
> >The whole purpose of the liability waiver is to disclaim liability --
> >so the fact that a waiver does or does not mention helmets really
> >makes no difference. The USCF waiver does -- but it also states the
> >no-drug policy. The USCF's waiver form has a statement of rules aspect
>
> >-- Jay Beattie.
>
> This usually boils down to exactly what is covered and under what
> conditions. If the sponsor has to provide personal injury liability
> for the contestants, then helmets are a non-negeotible fact of life.
>
> I'm watching the fallout from that nasty California event where the
> OHV lost control on the jump and killed a few spectators... I'll bet
> you see some significant changes there and for good reason! It has
> become obvious that the official competition sponsors didn't have
> personal injury coverage. Right now, the plaintiffs are looking for
> someone with deep pockets to sue. They're trying to sue the
> Department of the Interior; however, I doubt it'll fly. If I were
> Toyota, I'd be scared... *very* fucking scared! because they were one
> of the sponsors! I assure you, they're the next target because the
> actual OHV club has no assets beyond membership dues.
>
> As to Frank's club: they probably don't have many assets, either...
> I'll bet that they don't own a clubhouse, so who cares? Sue their sox
> off and that's all you'll get. If he wants Cannondale, Profile, or
> QBP to put their name on it, he'll need a solid carrier of
> liability... and these people will require helmets whether he likes it
> or not. They also require an EMS unit on site, and lots of other
> expensive stuff. Anyone who has ever organized an event well knows
> that the liability insurance is, by far and away, the greatest cost.
One thing to remember is that if you make a mistake, you are
personally liable -- regardless of whether you were acting on behalf
of your employer, church, non-profit, etc. Even if you are organized
as a corporation, LLC, etc., you are always responsible for your own
mistakes. So while a claimant probably cannot collect against a little
bike club, he or she can collect from the person who made the
mistake. So . . . don't make mistakes! -- Jay Beattie.
Tom Sherman °_°
>
> [...]
> Now... I'm done.[...]
Hey, finally a useful contribution from "!Jones"!
!Jones
Is one of y'all twisting Tom Sherman's arm and forcing him to read my
postings?
B'gwad, Tom, if'n *I* catch 'em, they'll wish they hadn't done that.
I'm mighty particular 'bout this bein' a free forum and I absolutely
*WILL NOT* tolerate anyone coercing you in any way, shape or form into
reading anything that offends you!
Believe me, sir... I *will* stand up for your rights here.
Jones
Frank Krygowski
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:57:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
>
> >... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? The
> >one with no helmet requirement?
>
> >How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
> >helmet requirement?
> >http://www.bikeleague.org/members/club/pdfs/sample_waiver.pdf
>
>
Of _course_ you won't! If you did, you'd have to consider admitting
that you were wrong. That might interfere with your using foul
language against those who showed you were wrong. And we know how
much you enjoy your obscenities!
> Here's my philosophy, Frank: if you value the integrity of your head
> as much as *I* value the integrity of your head, then you may damn
> well wear anything you please...
Well golly, I appreciate your permission. While you're being so
generous, could you see about getting the mandatory helmet laws
repealed in those Canadian provinces that have them? And maybe New
Zealand as well? I was thinking about taking some vacations.
> My point here, Frank, is that, if a person is on a collision course
> with some inelastic mass (i.e. concrete,) then that person would
> probably prefer that some impact dissipating material be inserted
> between their vital organs (i.e. their head) and the inelastic mass.
Yeah, I know, Jones. Except all that applies only when riding a
bike, even though bicycling causes only a couple percent of the
serious brain injuries in America, and is less risky on average than
walking down the street.
For all the activities that cause 98+% of the brain injury problem,
the physics is totally different, isn't it? At least, in Jones land,
that is.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> If you introduce an elastic material into the point of an inelastic
> collision, you dissipate the force... that's simple physics, dude!
> That's mechanics 101.
No, no, no! Jones, you're forgetting that such simple physics applies
only to bicyclists!
Why, "Jones First Law of Motion" clearly states that for people who
get brain injuries inside cars, or walking about streets, or falling
in the home (and we're up to about 90% of the problem right there)
there is absolutely no benefit to applying styrofoam. None!
- Frank Krygowski
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of _course_ you won't! If you did, you'd have to consider admitting
>that you were wrong. That might interfere with your using foul
>language against those who showed you were wrong. And we know how
>much you enjoy your obscenities!
Frank, in your short life, have you ever seen anyone on Usenet admit
that he or she was wrong? Have you, personally, ever done so? It
simply doesn't happen, Frank!
Unlike you, though, I do not plant my flag on this matter; *I* am not
nearly as deeply invested in the issue as you are. To me, the great
helmet debate is just a curious little oddity encountered in a
backwater of Usenet; however, to you, convincing people not to wear
protective clothing is your life's calling.
< SHRUG >
Jones
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No, no, no! Jones, you're forgetting that such simple physics applies
>only to bicyclists!
>
>Why, "Jones First Law of Motion" clearly states that for people who
>get brain injuries inside cars, or walking about streets, or falling
>in the home (and we're up to about 90% of the problem right there)
>there is absolutely no benefit to applying styrofoam. None!
Sorry, Frank, but I don't understand your point. Of course, that's
usually the sitaution.
I thought I said: "If you introduce an elastic material into the point
of an inelastic collision, you dissipate the force." By what odd
logic do you conclude that this applies exclusively to bicycles?
Oh, well.
Frank, you're certainly a giggle!
Jones
!Jones
> >Well, most of them are that clueless, actually. Besides, if you work
> >for a corporate entity, then you'd best "love the one you're with"
> >because they have an exclusive contract.
>
> Certainly unenforceable if it can be shown to be unreasonable.
Groovy. I agree. Why don't you go get you a good laywer and sue
'em? You have my full support up to (but not including) the point
where you ask me for money. OTOH, you have my complete verbal
support.
Jones
Frank Krygowski
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:49:35 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
>
> >Of _course_ you won't! If you did, you'd have to consider admitting
> >that you were wrong. That might interfere with your using foul
> >language against those who showed you were wrong. And we know how
> >much you enjoy your obscenities!
>
> Frank, in your short life, have you ever seen anyone on Usenet admit
> that he or she was wrong? Have you, personally, ever done so? It
> simply doesn't happen, Frank!
Yes, I have seen others admit they were wrong, and I have personally
said I was wrong. On one such occasion, the inimitable "jim beam"
promised me a period of freedom from his usual obnoxious attacks,
because he thought my statement of error was such a gallant thing.
Why not try it and see how things go for you?
- Frank Krygowski
!Jones
> Come on back in a year or three. Frank'll still be at it.
>
> Sad, really. BS
I admit that I don't fully understand the dynamic here. What's the
bit with helmets, anyway? I suspect that some parents forced their
children to wear helmets back in the '80s and that we're experiencing
the backlash from that... my mother (may God bless her!) cooked
vegetables into an unrecognizable mush, then made me eat 'em. To this
day, I refuse to eat cooked veggies... but, *you* may eat them cooked
if you like. I suspect that the helmet debate is kind of like that,
only *everyone* should eat them raw.
Jones
!Jones
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> No - I will NOT marry you.
Crap! I think I've been refuted!
Jones
Bill Sornson
"!Jones" <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0d9f59b-b3f7-4fcf...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Frank's mother potty trained him by making him sit backwards on the commode,
facing the tank. Never got over it.
HTH! BS
Frank Krygowski
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:59:14 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
>
> >No, no, no! Jones, you're forgetting that such simple physics applies
> >only to bicyclists!
>
> >Why, "Jones First Law of Motion" clearly states that for people who
> >get brain injuries inside cars, or walking about streets, or falling
> >in the home (and we're up to about 90% of the problem right there)
> >there is absolutely no benefit to applying styrofoam. None!
>
> Sorry, Frank, but I don't understand your point. Of course, that's
> usually the sitaution.
>
> I thought I said: "If you introduce an elastic material into the point
> of an inelastic collision, you dissipate the force." By what odd
> logic do you conclude that this applies exclusively to bicycles?
I said that because you are not promoting helmets for motorists. They
comprise the largest number of head injury fatalities in this county.
That's despite seat bags and air bags.
You aren't promoting helmets for pedestrians. They suffer far more
fatalities than bicyclists, either in number per year or number per
mile traveled.
How about people who take falls around the home? Behind riding in
motor vehicles, that's the second biggest source of TBI fatalities in
the US. Maybe you think helmets are too inconvenient for just
walking around the house under , but if so, why not at least recommend
them when climbing ladders, descending stairs, walking on winter's ice
and snow, etc?
Given that bicycling causes fewer than 1% of the TBI fatalities in the
US, why does nobody attack the major sources by promoting helmets?
More specifically, why don't you?
Is it because Jones First Law of Motion says styrofoam only helps if
you're on a bicycle?
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
Hey, Jonesy, I do hope you're not suggesting we ingest Krygowski raw.
He's such an unappetizing lumpenproletariat of gristly obstructionism
that even slow-braised he'd still be nasty. I'd rather turn veggie. --
AJ
PS Please start a separate thread to tell us how your Irish visit
turned out.
Andrew Price
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[---]
>Is it because Jones First Law of Motion says styrofoam only helps if
>you're on a bicycle?
Of course not - it's much simpler than that. He's just a troll, and
he's winding you up.
James
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
>
> [---]
>
> >Is it because Jones First Law of Motion says styrofoam only helps if
> >you're on a bicycle?
>
> Of course not - it's much simpler than that. He's just a troll, and
> he's winding you up.
Winding Frank up is not necessary. He's the first and only example of
perpetual motion in the known universe. Batteries not required.
JS.
Frank Krygowski
>
> I admit that I don't fully understand the dynamic here. What's the
> bit with helmets, anyway?
I suppose you could ask the European Cyclists' Union what's the bit
with helmets.
http://ecf.com/3675_1
You could ask the Cyclists' Touring Club of Britain.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4688
You could ask this French cycling organization
http://www.fubicy.org/spip.php?article191
Or see what this rather famous website has to say
http://www.copenhagenize.com/search?q=helmet
Or many others. Of course, you'd actually have to (gasp!) click a
link to read those, and I know that can be burdensome.
For me, I very much dislike the portrayal of all cycling as being so
dangerous that special protective headgear is necessary. ("Don't
leave your driveway without a helmet!!") I think that's bad for
cycling, for cyclists, and for society. It can't help but discourage
cycling, and it makes it more difficult for cyclists to get justice
when someone does harm them, rare as that is.
I also object to the absolute refusal of many to even admit there's a
question regarding the need for helmets. So many people adopt a
missionary attitude, and push their "Danger! Danger!" agenda without
even examining whether they might be wrong. They certainly can't be
convinced to make rational comparisons with other activities,
including those that actually are the sources of most serious head
injuries.
Likewise, so many people are refuse to admit there's a question
regarding bike helmets' efficacy. They take any dent in any helmet as
"proof" of tremendous value, "proof" that overpowers reams of data
gathered on a national scale. That lack of logic bothers me.
And no matter what some here seem to think, those fallacies do add up
to unreasonable and downright silly restrictions on cyclists. There
are mandatory helmet laws not only for kids (great way to dissuade
kids from riding!) but in places, there are MHLs for adults, and there
are many people actively working for more.
There are places where local rules, absent any laws, prohibit riding
without a helmet. I'm told that soldiers on military bases are
forbidden ride bikes without wearing a helmet. I have a friend in the
Peace Corps in west Africa who writes that in the remote back-country
village where she volunteers, the Peace Corps says she is not allowed
to ride a bike without a helmet. Hell, she probably owns one of only
20 helmets in Burkina Faso!
I'm also frustrated by the fact that helmets dominate most bike safety
information. It's not hard to find agencies that say almost nothing
about proper riding, but make sure to say "wear your helmet, they're
85% effective." I still pass people riding facing traffic, or at
night with not lights, but wearing helmets.
Overall, I find the constant proselytizing about helmets to be ill-
informed, irrational, simplistic, intolerant, and harmful to
cyclists. I don't try to convince people to stop wearing their
helmets. But when someone starts repeating the usual nonsense, I will
point out that it's nonsense.
- Frank Krygowski
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>For me, I very much dislike the portrayal of all cycling as being so
>dangerous that special protective headgear is necessary. ("Don't
>leave your driveway without a helmet!!") I think that's bad for
>cycling, for cyclists, and for society. It can't help but discourage
>cycling, and it makes it more difficult for cyclists to get justice
>when someone does harm them, rare as that is.
Well, that's actually logical... most of it, anyway.
*I* certainly didn't ever tell you: "Don't leave your driveway without
a helmet!!" And I have never heard of cycling being described os
particularly dangerous; however, I wouldn't categorically deny that
some might do so; people do strange things.
There are lots of sports wherein participants wear helmets, Frank.
Everyone from skaters to equestrian sports to motorcycle racers all
tend to wear helmets. Soldiers have historically worn helmets; riot
cops wear helmets; wild bull riders wear helmets (some of them,
anyway... never wanted to try it, myself); BASE jumpers wear helmets.
Heck, we had a publicity stunt where someone bungee jumped from a high
bridge and he wore a helmet; however, I haven't a clue what good it
would have done from that height!
A few years ago, I had an "OH SHIT!" moment with a major component
failure. I had about half a second between the metallic "Pop!" and
impact. No, this isn't a "The helmet saved my life" story because my
head didn't hit... but, I guarantee that the thoughts flashing through
my mind in that half second were not: "I wish I wasn't wearing this
darned helmet!"
Helmets work; that's simply a proven fact. Now, does that mean that
*you* have to wear one? Certainly not if *I* am the arbiter of your
actions. Since I'm not your arbiter, it really doesn't matter what I
think, now, does it?
Jones
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Helmets work; that's simply a proven fact.[...]
Utter nonsense.
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, I have seen others admit they were wrong, and I have personally
>said I was wrong. On one such occasion, the inimitable "jim beam"
>promised me a period of freedom from his usual obnoxious attacks,
>because he thought my statement of error was such a gallant thing.
>
>Why not try it and see how things go for you?
Oh, you'll see the occasional ownership of an error or two,
particularly in a tech field. I would flatulate that you'll never see
*anyone* acknowledge the opposing point in the abortion cat fight.
You see, Frank, I mostly consider the whole debate a curious Usenet
oddity... I think your position is silly and have thought so all
along, but I have no particular investment. Tomorrow, I'll have moved
along to the jet skiers or the rock climbers and I'll not give it
another thought.
To you, OTOH, the big helmet debate is your *calling*! I'm as likely
to gain support for gun control from the National Rifle Association as
I am to convince you that my helmet is a good idea.
I intend to wear it, anyway, so get over it. I always wear a condom,
too... especially when I shoot up drugs; it prevents AIDS, you know.
Jones
!Jones
Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I thought I said: "If you introduce an elastic material into the point
>> of an inelastic collision, you dissipate the force." By what odd
>> logic do you conclude that this applies exclusively to bicycles?
>
>I said that because you are not promoting helmets for motorists. They
>comprise the largest number of head injury fatalities in this county.
>That's despite seat bags and air bags.
I have never taken any position whatsoever on that; why bring it up?
!Jones
I have always believed that quality trolling was a little like pulling
a cat's tail. The point is that all you have to do is *hold* the
cat's tail; the cat will do all of the pulling.
That's my philosophy, anyway.
Chalo
>
> !Jones wrote:
> > [...]
> > Helmets work; that's simply a proven fact.[...]
>
> Utter nonsense.
For sure. When I started riding seriously, helmets were quite rare.
Now they're everywhere, often being worn by the kinds of clueless
riders who have always been most likely to get themselves into
trouble. And yet more or less the same fraction of us get hurt just
as badly and killed just as dead as ever. The data confirm my
impressions in this regard.
What that tells me is that helmets can pass tests, and can even
prevent or reduce injury in an individual incident, but on the whole
something about them must effectively offset their entire measurable
benefit. To me, the simplest explanation is that they make riders
feel safer than they are, and make motorists think cycling is more
dangerous than it is. Both these things could result in higher risk
levels for cyclists.
I can recognize some validity to the claims of increased rotational
brain injury from helmets, but that alone seems like it wouldn't
entirely nullify the protective effect of helmets across the
population.
Chalo
Kevan Smith
> I can recognize some validity to the claims of increased rotational
> brain injury from helmets, but that alone seems like it wouldn't
> entirely nullify the protective effect of helmets across the
> population.
My opinion is that if a bicyclist wore a motorcycle helmet, that would
be the best protection and finally, _really_ have a scientifically
verifiable effect. But, screw doing that.
MikeWhy
That's a little backwards. They're not saying, "just as many are dying."
They're saying, "just as FEW are dying." This has a slightly different
meaning, and leads to different conclusions. Rather than look for things
like rotational brain injuries as explanations, you're looking for reasons
why the death rate of helmet wearers remains proportionally low, despite the
relative increase in their population. 3% of all bicycle fatalities were
wearing helmets, in an 8 year study in NYC, despite a presumed increase in
helmet use during that time. You can thank the AHZ smoke blowers for
obscuring the issue and wasting your time.
MikeWhy
Bicycle helmets are tested to essentially the same impact loads and
survivability thresholds as motorcycle helmets. Specifically, a 12 pound
sledge falling 6 feet onto the helmeted heads of two cyclists, one wearing a
bicycle helmet and the other wearing a motorcycle helmet, will leave both
equally injured but both equally alive. Bicycle helmet ineffectiveness is a
myth, a big misguided smoke screen puffed up by anti-helmet zealots. See my
related note to Chalo for why I think they do this.
Kevan Smith
> Bicycle helmets are tested to essentially the same impact loads and
> survivability thresholds as motorcycle helmets.
BS. Quote the standards.
!Jones
Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hey, Jonesy, I do hope you're not suggesting we ingest Krygowski raw.
>He's such an unappetizing lumpenproletariat of gristly obstructionism
>that even slow-braised he'd still be nasty. I'd rather turn veggie. --
>AJ
>
>PS Please start a separate thread to tell us how your Irish visit
>turned out.
Well, we saw the Emerald Island... for three weeks, anyway. It was
nice to get out of the tropics in July! ... like stepping into winter
here; however, our winters are quite pleasant. We had a little
hippy-van rented that had a bed and a gas burner in the tail gate;
that was home on the road.
I must say, while Ireland is quite beautiful, you can jolly well keep
the cuisine! ... at least the "traditional Irish breakfast" part of
it! I cannot face a plate full of bangers in the morning! Oh, well,
that's why they make porridge, I suppose. And the raspberries were
in, so we had fresh berries every day.
Didn't do any cycling; the spousal module is handicapped, so we have
to ride tandem and none of the rental sites had any. I posted a few
pix if anyone is interested in typical tourist stuff... nothing
special... you know the drill: old castles and churches.
http://picasaweb.google.com/ra15932556/IrelandTrip#
Jones
MikeWhy
news:8eydnbGW96FsFxXR...@giganews.com...
Snell Foundation and US DOT, for motorcycle helmets. US Consumer Product
Safety Commission for bicycle helmets. Snell specifies the impact energy as
105 joules, about the same as the other standards of 5 kg impact mass
dropped from 2 meters. Survivability thresholds are all about the same, at
300 G measured in the head mass.
Frank Krygowski
>
> There are lots of sports wherein participants wear helmets, Frank.
> Everyone from skaters to equestrian sports to motorcycle racers all
> tend to wear helmets. Soldiers have historically worn helmets; riot
> cops wear helmets; wild bull riders wear helmets (some of them,
> anyway... never wanted to try it, myself); BASE jumpers wear helmets.
> Heck, we had a publicity stunt where someone bungee jumped from a high
> bridge and he wore a helmet; however, I haven't a clue what good it
> would have done from that height!
Right - or, mostly right, anyway.
But when "Safety!!!" missionaries say that one should never ride a
bike without a helmet, they are putting ordinary bicycling into the
same category as soldiers, riot cops, bull riders, BASE jumpers and
bungee jumpers. All those are activities that most people will shun.
The implication that cycling is similarly dangerous cannot possibly be
good for cycling, and it adds evidence to the claims that "He knew the
risks!" when some motorist negligently harms a cyclist.
> A few years ago, I had an "OH SHIT!" moment with a major component
> failure. I had about half a second between the metallic "Pop!" and
> impact. No, this isn't a "The helmet saved my life" story because my
> head didn't hit... but, I guarantee that the thoughts flashing through
> my mind in that half second were not: "I wish I wasn't wearing this
> darned helmet!"
... and that's what it's come to. Any fall off a bike immediately
generates helmet stories - either "My helmet touched the ground, and
that proves I'd have died without it!" Or "He died. He should have
been wearing a helmet." Or "He died, even though he was wearing a
helmet." Or "He died. We'd better not mention that he was wearing a
helmet."
There was a time when almost all falls off bikes were just falls off
bikes. You got up. You rode on. Exceptions were as rare then as
they are now. But now every one is described as a near-death
experience.
> Helmets work; that's simply a proven fact.
Oh?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
For those who find clicking a link to be burdensome, that page
contains data on US head injuries for cyclists:
67,000 head injuries in 1991, when 18% of cyclists wore helmets.
74,000 head injuries in 2000, when 50% of cyclists wore helmets.
And in that time, cycling had fallen by 21%.
Can you explain how this proves that helmets work?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Rather than look for things
> like rotational brain injuries as explanations, you're looking for reasons
> why the death rate of helmet wearers remains proportionally low, despite the
> relative increase in their population. 3% of all bicycle fatalities were
> wearing helmets, in an 8 year study in NYC, despite a presumed increase in
> helmet use during that time. You can thank the AHZ smoke blowers for
> obscuring the issue and wasting your time.
So what percentage of the much-more-common pedestrian fatality victims
had been wearing helmets? Wasn't it 0%? Despite their per-mile risk
being at least triple that of cyclists?
How's that campaign for pedestrian helmets coming along? After all,
it's usually considered silly to attack a relatively small problem,
while ignoring a much larger one.
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >PS Please start a separate thread to tell us how your Irish visit
> >turned out.
>
> Well, we saw the Emerald Island... for three weeks, anyway. It was
> nice to get out of the tropics in July! ... like stepping into winter
> here; however, our winters are quite pleasant. We had a little
> hippy-van rented that had a bed and a gas burner in the tail gate;
> that was home on the road.
>
> I must say, while Ireland is quite beautiful, you can jolly well keep
> the cuisine! ... at least the "traditional Irish breakfast" part of
> it!
A "full Irish breakfast" is a delete-option multiple choice. You tell
the landlady, "Leave off the bangers and the black and white puddings,
poach the eggs and crisp the bacon," and then you get a breakfast that
is palatable, looks good on the plate with the mushroom and grilled
tomato, and leaves space for lunch. The "pudding", which I have only
tasted in guest houses, actually tastes good if cooked right. We eat
cereal or toast for breakfast at home, or rarely barley oats porridge
and kippers, so I don't know how to prepare black pudding right, but
suspect it is fried in lethal amounts of fat; not for people our age,
if you won't think me impertinent.
> I cannot face a plate full of bangers in the morning! Oh, well,
> that's why they make porridge, I suppose. And the raspberries were
> in, so we had fresh berries every day.
There's a couple of weeks every year where you can make a meal in
blackberries off the hedgerows.
> Didn't do any cycling; the spousal module is handicapped, so we have
> to ride tandem and none of the rental sites had any.
In truth, though sometimes on the road I speak to experienced foreign
tourers who do it, I wouldn't tour on a bike in Ireland, or even take
local rides without expert local advice, though that is readily
available at the guesthouses and hotels. At one hotel where we stayed
in Bantry, just down the road here, the most popular leaflet on the
rack in reception was a map of local safe bicycle rides and the
address of a rental place.
>I posted a few
> pix if anyone is interested in typical tourist stuff... nothing
> special... you know the drill: old castles and churches.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ra15932556/IrelandTrip#
>
> Jones
I like your pics -- you've found some places down the road from me
that I didn't even know existed -- but I'm surprised you didn't see
more sunshine. August, which is about as far back as I remember, was
so hot, I had to take my rides before dawn for a couple of weeks. No
doubt you noticed how small the Emerald Isle is, so that wherever you
go you're never far from water.
I hope you stopped off to kiss the Blarney Stone.
http://members.multimania.co.uk/fiultra/andre_jute_kissing_the_blarney_stone.jpg
Andre Jute
in the green and beloved (with gold coachlines!)
!Jones
> For sure. When I started riding seriously, helmets were quite rare.
> Now they're everywhere, often being worn by the kinds of clueless
> riders who have always been most likely to get themselves into
> trouble. And yet more or less the same fraction of us get hurt just
> as badly and killed just as dead as ever. The data confirm my
> impressions in this regard.
>
> What that tells me is that helmets can pass tests, and can even
> prevent or reduce injury in an individual incident, but on the whole
> something about them must effectively offset their entire measurable
> benefit. To me, the simplest explanation is that they make riders
> feel safer than they are, and make motorists think cycling is more
> dangerous than it is. Both these things could result in higher risk
> levels for cyclists.
>
> I can recognize some validity to the claims of increased rotational
> brain injury from helmets, but that alone seems like it wouldn't
> entirely nullify the protective effect of helmets across the
> population.
>
> Chalo
If one examines only the HIV and teen pregnancy rates, then one must
conclude that condoms are ineffective. "It said, 'Place on organ to
prevent infection,' but we don't have an organ, so I put it on the
piano, instead." We passed out condoms to the kids like candy in the
late '80s and '90s; they had no effect whatsoever.
So... I plan to head out to some sleazy bar tonight, pick up some shit-
faced drunk person, and have sex with him or her. Without passing
judgment on my hypothetical evening plans, would you suggest that
including a condom might be a good idea? But, wait a minute! I
thought we had established that they were ineffective. I suggest that
it's simply impossible for protein to pass through latex... it cannot
happen!
Similarly, opponents of the death penalty argue that such Draconian
behavior does not prevent violent criminal behavior; they point out
that there is no detectible difference in the rate of violent crime
before and after passage of capital punishment statutes. Please tell
me how a person recidivates after receiving the death penalty.
One sees exactly the same argument raised by auto drivers about
seatbelts, gun owners about locking devices on guns, and kayakers
about flotation devices. I wear my seatbelt in a car, keep my gun
locked, and wear a PFD when kayaking... and I'm not really going to
the bar for sex, but, if I did, I'd take a package of condoms with
me. Helmets, regardless what the motorcyclists and bicyclists think
of them, work for the same reason (but not in the same way) condoms
work; they work because they cannot *not* work.
When a study seems to violate common sense, I tend to look carefully
at the operational definitions (i.e. "reported use") and the data
collection methodology; therein, I usually find the issue. SPSS
usually doesn't make mistakes; however, there *is* the famous
statistical proof that the world is flat (p<=0.05).
Jones
Clive George
No, one would conclude that the passing out of condoms like candy didn't
prevent all teenage pregnancy and HIV. It's not that they don't work,
it's that they're not being used. The analogy to helmet wearing doesn't
hold, because the method of failure differs.
> So... I plan to head out to some sleazy bar tonight, pick up some shit-
> faced drunk person, and have sex with him or her. Without passing
> judgment on my hypothetical evening plans, would you suggest that
> including a condom might be a good idea? But, wait a minute! I
> thought we had established that they were ineffective. I suggest that
> it's simply impossible for protein to pass through latex... it cannot
> happen!
Since your original premise is wrong, this paragraph is simple nonsense.
> Similarly, opponents of the death penalty argue that such Draconian
> behavior does not prevent violent criminal behavior; they point out
> that there is no detectible difference in the rate of violent crime
> before and after passage of capital punishment statutes. Please tell
> me how a person recidivates after receiving the death penalty.
You're comparing things which aren't related again. Prison prevents
reoffending in the same way as death, thus one can see that the death
penalty isn't having the deterrent effect its proponents hope for. The
deterrent effect is far more important than the punishment of
individuals for the numbers you're looking at.
> One sees exactly the same argument raised by auto drivers about
> seatbelts, gun owners about locking devices on guns, and kayakers
> about flotation devices. I wear my seatbelt in a car, keep my gun
> locked, and wear a PFD when kayaking... and I'm not really going to
> the bar for sex, but, if I did, I'd take a package of condoms with
> me. Helmets, regardless what the motorcyclists and bicyclists think
> of them, work for the same reason (but not in the same way) condoms
> work; they work because they cannot *not* work.
That's not actually true. You're starting with your conclusion and
working back - that's bad science.
> When a study seems to violate common sense, I tend to look carefully
> at the operational definitions (i.e. "reported use") and the data
> collection methodology; therein, I usually find the issue. SPSS
> usually doesn't make mistakes; however, there *is* the famous
> statistical proof that the world is flat (p<=0.05).
The issue ain't what you think it is.
MikeWhy
> "MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> considered Thu, 9 Sep 2010
> 02:07:18 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Kevan Smith wrote:
>>> On 9/9/10 12:57 AM, Chalo wrote:
>>>> I can recognize some validity to the claims of increased rotational
>>>> brain injury from helmets, but that alone seems like it wouldn't
>>>> entirely nullify the protective effect of helmets across the
>>>> population.
>>>
>>> My opinion is that if a bicyclist wore a motorcycle helmet, that
>>> would be the best protection and finally, _really_ have a
>>> scientifically verifiable effect. But, screw doing that.
>>
>> Bicycle helmets are tested to essentially the same impact loads and
>> survivability thresholds as motorcycle helmets.
>
> If cycle helmets met the same standards, don't you think some
> motorcyclists would be wearing them?
Not bullshit. Look it up if you can figure out Google. Motorcycle helmets
have additional criteria not specified for bicycle helmets, including
coverage area and involving the chin bar when present. Retention criteria
are also more stringent. Impact loads and survivability, however, are
essentially the same. If you want the additional coverage and facial
protection of a full face motorcycle helmet, buy and wear a motorcycle
helmet.
>> Specifically, a 12
>> pound sledge falling 6 feet onto the helmeted heads of two cyclists,
>> one wearing a bicycle helmet and the other wearing a motorcycle
>> helmet, will leave both equally injured but both equally alive.
>> Bicycle helmet ineffectiveness is a myth, a big misguided smoke
>> screen puffed up by anti-helmet zealots. See my related note to
>> Chalo for why I think they do this.
>
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.
That's my line, Phil, aimed at you and the misguided minions who fail to
understand the data and physical realities. You can't hide behind this one
any more. Bicycle helmets as defined by the US CPSC, signed into law in the
United States Federal Register, and sold as such on the consumer market in
the United States are effective protection for bicyclists against very
significant impact loads. Specifically, survivability thresholds are tested
to an impact energy equal to a 12 pound sledge falling 6 feet. Move on to
your real issues, or pack it in if your case is built on the false claim of
helmet ineffectiveness.
MikeWhy
> Give us a url for the relevant sections of each standard.
> Or admit you are lying.
Google it, dumbshit.
MikeWhy
On second thought, your probably couldn't find ****** with a flashlight.
Here's a bit of help:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=snell+memorial+foundation+motorcycle+helmet
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=federal+register+cpsc+bicycle+helmet
kolldata
We use Back-up. Practicing bracing with the Back-up balloon out
simplifies getting way over body in water before bracing upward OR
trying to brace and failing. Using the balloon allows a return to
upright rather than getting out, removing water…..PITA.
The mechanism appears failsafe if not moronproof as the bag requires
folding skills.
Placing a heavier more durabbbble bag on your head with straps, a CO2
cartridge with trigger puncture mechanism for the CO2, and a sensor to
set it off with battery…..
Buy two pencils fersure maybe 3.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:94pinRMSTyEJ:www.useakayak.org/recoveries_rescues/roll_aid_recovery.html+Roll-Aid/Back-up&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMXbFXmaCfM
itsnot low skill its great fun and very amusing.
There is a kayak equivalent to the head bag design problem-a kayak
paddle with float bags at paddle blades: weight added times paddle
movements/day.
now where have I hid the ^%%T$$# inflator ?
kolldata
kolldata
> >> !Jones <swsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> An
> >>> insurance underwriter could GAF less whether you wear a helmet or a
> >>> feather in your jockey strap if it doesn't cut into the bottom line of
> >>> the risk. Underwriters aren't into an academic discussion.
> > Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> >> That is why insurance companies don't generally require helmets.
> >> Of course, people who make uninformed or just plain ignorant decisions
> >> to require them for events like to blame insurance companies, but they
> >> are mostly lying about it to evade responsibility for their decisions.
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > For an exactly parallel situation, we've had people complain from time
> > to time about being refused service at drive up windows, supposedly
> > based on insurance policies. And we've had people who successfully
> > fought those policies report that the insurers had no such anti-bike
> > policies.
>
> > Such policies may exist in some cases. But in other cases, they're
> > invented for use as smokescreens.
>
> I was told that at a bank once. "Insurance" my ass. I laid
> my bike flat, blocking the driveup lane, walked inside and
> withdrew my full balance, closing the account. Now I bank
> with a locally owned entity, several of whose officers are
> cyclists, where I regularly ride right up to the teller gate
> in the lobby.
>
> Problem solved.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
you should be shot, seriously.
In the Grate NW, water runs continuously from glaciers, Mt Hood ect so
boat sport is a big eco deal upland. You now those desill motor
preventers at Mac's drive up ? well upland....
Kevan Smith
I just finished reading both standards from the SMF website. There are
many differences between bicycle and motorcycle helmet testing and
standards. In general, more is expected of motorcycle helmets than
bicycle helmets.