Lost a friend

[Frank Krygowski]

I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle crashes.

But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.

I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.

He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.

As usual, the information regarding his death does not mention a helmet,
because he was wearing one. (If he had _not_ worn one, "He was not
wearing a helmet" would have been in all the publicity. That's true even
though helmets are never mentioned for the many more pedestrians or
motorists who die of brain injury.)

My friend's helmet failed to protect him from the simplest type of
zero-speed fall, the one that supposedly informed the official helmet
certification test.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

Sorry to hear!

Yes it’s hugely variable as to what a injury will do, or put it away some
folks walk away from really high energy events and others are harmed/killed
by what appears to be something quite benign.

Essentially our knowledge is clearly lacking.

Roger Merriman.

[Tom Kunich]

Friends may come and friends may go. Would they not, if true friends, wish us to go on?

[Lou Holtman]

Op vrijdag 6 mei 2022 om 18:59:06 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:

A friend died and you babbling about helmets to make what point? Weird....You know about statistics, no?

Lou

[Sir Ridesalot]

Frank is vehemently opposed to helmets for bicyclists. Thus he denigrates both the helmet and t he bicyclist for wearing one.

I'm sorry that he lost a friend.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

Please try to be honest. I don't denigrate bicyclists for wearing
helmets. Most of the people I ride with wear them almost always, and
I've never denigrated any of them for that reason. That's despite some
of them being very rude to me about my personal choice.

I do denigrate the industry that has promoted this scam for decades, and
the "safety" people who claim bicyclists MUST wear a helmet every time
they ride. I denigrate those who emphasize every _cyclist_ brain injury
death, especially if the cyclist did not wear a helmet, but who ignore
the countless more brain injury deaths of pedestrians, motorists and
people just walking around their houses - people who are never subjected
to helmet shame.

About the helmets: Why is it that actual facts about the truly low level
of their actual protection levels are treated as objectionable? Why is
it that anything questioning the "always wear a helmet" dogma is
considered heretical? Are they _really_ religious talismans that must
always be venerated, never questioned?

Oh, and I will admit, I'm not fond of people distorting my views in this
forum. That behavior deserves denigration. Again, please try to be honest.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

+1
Way to lose sight of the bigger issue, Frank.

[Frank Krygowski]

My friend died from a very minor fall despite the universally touted
protection of the "always wear it!" magic hat.

I'm not allowed to say the magic didn't work?

This does look like religious dogma to me. Every "my helmet saved my
life!" story is blessed. But "the helmet failed him" story must be
condemned.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sepp Ruf]

Lou Holtman wrote:
> Op vrijdag 6 mei 2022 om 18:59:06 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:
>> I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
>> involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
>> that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
>> I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle crashes.
>>
>> But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
>> friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
>> well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.
>>
>> I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
>> where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
>> with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
>> husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
>> unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.
>>
>> He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.

Well, who really knows? Had your other, ex-cycling club, friend died
because of misapplied and botched respirator therapy, the hospital would
have claimed C*vid to be the cause of death. Any good news from him, Frank?

>> As usual, the information regarding his death does not mention a helmet,
>> because he was wearing one. (If he had _not_ worn one, "He was not
>> wearing a helmet" would have been in all the publicity. That's true even
>> though helmets are never mentioned for the many more pedestrians or
>> motorists who die of brain injury.)
>>
>> My friend's helmet failed to protect him from the simplest type of
>> zero-speed fall, the one that supposedly informed the official helmet
>> certification test.

"Heureka, Frank was riiighT!" should have been the unfortunate accident
victim's noble last words -- but see, Frank, few friends are that
considerate!

> A friend died and you babbling about helmets to make what point? Weird....You know about statistics, no?

What statistic, Lou? I remember informal "Wellgo accident" and "loose
cleat screws" statistics I won't elaborate on. But I'd certainly be
interested about which combination of pedals, cleats, shoes were used,
an what kind of trouble had earlier been going on with the pedal.


--
Hmmm, quickly pass the truck, or watch what that opposing traffic is up
to? <https://t.me/intelslava/28116>

[Lou Holtman]

Would he have been better of without a helmet? Never mind.

Lou

[Lou Holtman]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 11:21:02 PM UTC+2, Sepp Ruf wrote:

> Lou Holtman wrote:
?
> What statistic, Lou? I remember informal "Wellgo accident" and "loose
> cleat screws" statistics I won't elaborate on. But I'd certainly be
> interested about which combination of pedals, cleats, shoes were used,
> an what kind of trouble had earlier been going on with the pedal.

You are not smart to keep using pedals that gave you troubles getting out. You fix that. What I always find strange is that people when facing that problem keep trying to get out instead of starting to pedal again.
Ritchey and Wellgo are cheap SPD knock off crap.
What statistics? Helmets are not a 100% solution, but you know that. Smoking bad for you health? Ha, my grandpa smoked his whole life and died at an age of 89 years.

Lou


>
>

[Sir Ridesalot]

I had some clipless road pedals that I found it nearly impossible to get out of at 12 o'clock and 3 o'clock. I tried adjusting the tension but still had problems. After falling over again in a panic stop I removed those pedals (and the cleats from my shoes) and went back to toe-clips. I don't wear shoes with cleats unless I'm going on a long ride. I have a pair of shoes that are very much like the bicycling touring shoes of the 1980's and wear those shoes most of the time.

A few years back I crashed and my head bounced off the payment. I was wearing a helmet and posted on this newsgroup that I was glad that I was wearing my helmet that time. Frank then posted that if I had NOT been wearing a helmet then my head would NOT have hit the pavement.

Frank is simply rabidly anti-helmet.

Cheers

[John B.]

But Frank, from memory I have fallen over twice, once with toe clips
and straps and once with clipless. In the first case I wasn't wearing
a helmet and in the second I was... and in neither case did my head
hit the ground.

So, at least based on my experience, whether your friend was, or was
not, wearing a helmet is really immaterial.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

We don't know.

Helmeted riders are significantly over-represented in emergency rooms.
That is, the percentage of ER-treated riders who say they were wearing a
helmet is always much higher than the observed percentage of helmeted
riders in the population.

Some people have reasonably discussed possible reasons for this
discrepancy - not that I expect that to happen here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/6/2022 5:20 PM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
> Lou Holtman wrote:
>> Op vrijdag 6 mei 2022 om 18:59:06 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:
>>> I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
>>> involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
>>> that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
>>> I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle
>>> crashes.
>>>
>>> But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
>>> friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
>>> well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.
>>>
>>> I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
>>> where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
>>> with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
>>> husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
>>> unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.
>>>
>>> He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.
>
> Well, who really knows?  Had your other, ex-cycling club, friend died
> because of misapplied and botched respirator therapy, the hospital would
> have claimed C*vid to be the cause of death.  Any good news from him,
> Frank?

As I probably stated, he now lives a couple states away, so I get news
only rarely. But from what I've heard, he has recovered well and is
riding again, so that news is good indeed. I don't know if he's riding
at the same level; he used to be quite fast.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/6/2022 6:18 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> A few years back I crashed and my head bounced off the payment. I was wearing a helmet and posted on this newsgroup that I was glad that I was wearing my helmet that time. Frank then posted that if I had NOT been wearing a helmet then my head would NOT have hit the pavement.

<sigh> No, Sir, you're wrong. Don't emulate Tom. Quote what I said,
after first reading it carefully. Don't rely on your memory.

I made no proclamations about your specific incident, but I did note
that many cases of a helmet hitting would have been near misses or mild
impacts with a bare head.

This should be obvious by simple geometry, since a helmet is
significantly larger than a bare head. If you add considerations of
reflexes, neck strength as influenced by evolution, etc. it should be
even more obvious.

Despite that, we have countless stories saying "My helmet was damaged! I
would have died without it!" That's no more logical than saying "I
scuffed my shoe. If I'd worn sandals I'd be on crutches."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

And equally true, I fell over twice because I couldn't get my foot off
the pedal - to clips and straps and clipless pedals, and twice I
crashed severely enough to break bones - ribs and pelvis, and in none
of the crashed did my head hit the ground, no scrapes on my head and
no marks on the helmets.

So perhaps it wasn't the helmet. Perhaps you friend simply didn't know
how to fall off a bicycle. Which, I might remark, makes as much sense
as your usual helmet arguments.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well, like most "surveys" the numbers of helmeted riders treated in
emergency clinics is, at best, less then informative. To provide an
accurate assessment of the value of helmets one would have to know the
total number of cyclists on a given day, how many fell over, how many
were injured sufficiently to actually require medical assistance, how
many were wearing helmets at the time of the crash, how many crashed
without helmets, and probably other data that I've forgotten to add.

But like most "surveys" it does attempt to prove a point... that
helmets are beneficial.

But equally the installation of tiny, always on, lights on bicycles
was demonstrated, in the Odense study, to reduce the numbers of single
vehicle bicycle crashes, although this "fact" was ignored by the bike
light company that sponsored the study (:-)

What I find interesting about bike helmets is the very low standards
that they are tested at.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

People in car accidents wearing seatbelts die. People in car accidents with airbags die. I'd still bet both federally mandated safety devices help reduce the number of deaths and injuries. But no safety device provides 100% protection. The articles discussing crashes I have read on the internet or in newspapers usually mention whether seatbelts were used and whether the airbag went off. But not always. I can't really notice any bias one way or the other. Its probably more dependent on which author writes the article.

[Frank Krygowski]

Perhaps 20 years ago when I was still active as a League of American
Bicyclists Cycling Instructor, that organization gave serious
consideration to adding a higher level class, one which would include
training on how to fall as safely as possible. IIRC the exercises were
to take place on a grassy surface. That proposal was eventually dropped.

I've always preferred not to fall in the first place. Mountain biking
being what it is, I did have quite a few falls while doing that. Never
an injury, though.

> Which, I might remark, makes as much sense
> as your usual helmet arguments.

I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
views on helmets.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

I wrote a paper showing that helmets had no general effect. But it did not prove that they did not have any effect at all. Most fatalities are from car strikes and not falling over in a mild fall. So despite the statistics, I have always suggested that people use them. I prefer that Frank not wear a helmet so that a minor fall might kill him as well.

I have also related that the Bontrager Wave Cell helmet is actually designed to reduce head blows to a manageable level and that the shape of the helmet which is not exactly the prettiest thing in the world is designed to extend coverage over the forehead, one of the places most likely to cause concussion if hit.

So how many people here have actually changed over to an uglier helmet? I would bet "none" since a helmet isn't a protective device to most people but rather a fashion article.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/6/2022 11:53 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> People in car accidents wearing seatbelts die. People in car accidents with airbags die. I'd still bet both federally mandated safety devices help reduce the number of deaths and injuries. But no safety device provides 100% protection. The articles discussing crashes I have read on the internet or in newspapers usually mention whether seatbelts were used and whether the airbag went off. But not always. I can't really notice any bias one way or the other. Its probably more dependent on which author writes the article.

Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
A realistic, instrumented crash test dummy is belted into the car being
tested. The car is run into a solid wall at about 35 mph. Sensors and
other devices record the effect on the dummy. It's very realistic.

Here's the certification test for a bike helmet: A model of a
decapitated human head - no body attached - is dropped about six feet
onto a solid surface. It hits at about 14 mph. Linear acceleration of
the headform is measured. Rotational acceleration - the actual cause of
most crash trauma in the brain - is not even measured.

The helmet test standard is ridiculously lenient, and was criticized as
such as soon as it was proposed. The standard writer's defense was "This
is all a helmet can do: Protect someone from a simple topple."

One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
protective that they should NEVER ride without one.

It is a scam.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/6/2022 8:56 PM, John B. wrote:

> On Fri, 6 May 2022 19:42:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> Helmeted riders are significantly over-represented in emergency rooms.
>> That is, the percentage of ER-treated riders who say they were wearing a
>> helmet is always much higher than the observed percentage of helmeted
>> riders in the population.
>>
>> Some people have reasonably discussed possible reasons for this
>> discrepancy - not that I expect that to happen here.
>
> Well, like most "surveys" the numbers of helmeted riders treated in
> emergency clinics is, at best, less then informative. To provide an
> accurate assessment of the value of helmets one would have to know the
> total number of cyclists on a given day, how many fell over, how many
> were injured sufficiently to actually require medical assistance, how
> many were wearing helmets at the time of the crash, how many crashed
> without helmets, and probably other data that I've forgotten to add.

Well, the over representation of helmeted riders at ERs is easy enough
to document, if one knows where to look. The initial significance of
that fact was related to the most influential (and now most notorious)
helmet promotion paper, by Thompson & Rivara in 1989. That was the
source of the astonishing and never yet corroborated claim that helmets
prevent 85% of head injuries.

IIRC, it was Dr. Dorothy Robinson (PhD statistics researcher) who
obtained T&R's data set and pointed out the severe weaknesses in that
study. Among them was the fact that about 21% of those kids treated in
ER had worn helmets; but contemporary street surveys by the same team of
helmet promoters had noted that only about 3% of kids in the area were
wearing helmets. Helmeted kids were about seven times as likely to be
taken to ER as unhelmeted kids. That fact alone was enough to nullify
the "85%" claim. (If you're seven times as likely to go to ER but then
seven times less likely to then be found with a head injury, it's pretty
much a wash.)

When similar data has been available, the same fact has emerged,
although with not such a high magnitude. That is, helmeted cyclists are
regularly found to be over represented in ER cases.

Again, we can discuss the potential reasons and implications for this
discrepancy. But it should make clear that "just wear a helmet" is
grossly simplistic advice.

> What I find interesting about bike helmets is the very low standards
> that they are tested at.

I'll also mention, as I have before, that the more sophisticated and
expensive one's helmet, the more likely it has been designed to just
barely meet even those very low standards. The entire design process is
slanted toward removing weight and increasing ventilation while still
_barely_ passing the ludicrous certification test.

(Perhaps the "wavecell" helmet that's seduced Tom is different. But I've
not seen any real world data indicating it's significantly better than
standard styofoam.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
"Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
espoused here is "They ain't no good!"

You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
in preventing injures.

You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
anguish with no proof what so ever.

So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
course, evidence to prove it.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

"I wrote a paper showing...."???

Tommy wrote a paper? I remind the reader that this is the chap that
had a problem with sticking a seat post in the seat tube.... sticking
a stick in a hole.... something the average 4 year old child can
accomplish.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

> On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
> >views on helmets.
> Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
> "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
> espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
>
> You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
> go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
> in preventing injures.
>
> You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
> anguish with no proof what so ever.
>
> So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
> bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
> course, evidence to prove it.

OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?

The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.

But that's false. The easiest indication it's false comes from fatality data. And that data is
the best available because fatalities are tracked most accurately.

So what percentage of American TBI fatalities are bicyclists? Take a guess. 50%? 30%? 15%? 10%?

Take a guess. I'll wait.

The correct answer, last time I dug out the data, was considerably less. Again, what's your guess?

There were several times I gave talks on bike safety to various audiences. A couple bike clubs, a
statewide bike advocacy organization, a transportation organization... and I asked that question.
The most common answer was 30%, probably based on the fear mongering helmet promotions.

What's your guess?

The correct answer, last time I looked it up, was four tenths of one percent. It was far less than
the percentage of TBI fatalities among pedestrians. Way, way less than motorists. WAY less than
people just walking around their homes. Bicycling is, and has always been, a negligible percentage
of American TBI fatalities. And that's despite bicycling being a very common activity in America.

I've never found any data indicating that the numbers are different for "serious" instead of fatal
TBIs, however "serious" might be defined. But I've seen data (which I'd have to dig out again)
indicating concussions are more common in helmeted cyclists than in bareheaded cyclists.

So: Even _if_ lightweight styrofoam helmets were tremendously effective at preventing serious or
fatal brain injuries, why on earth promote them so avidly for an activity that is not a source of
those injuries? Motoring travel, pedestrian travel, walking down stairs all eclipse bicycling as
a source of TBI. Why not advocate helmets for those situations?

Bicycling is simply not dangerous enough to justify the negative attention, or the negative comments
thrown at bicyclists who eschew helmets. (Recall, I've had eight friends and acquaintances killed riding
motor vehicles. Nobody ever said about them "He should have worn a helmet.)

OK, that's a bit about exaggeration of risk. Let me know if you want some info on helmet lack of effectiveness.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24

(chomp)

>One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>protective that they should NEVER ride without one.

If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
<https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
"Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.

Same with child safety seats:
<https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
"Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for
infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."

>It is a scam.

The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seats is
that the users of these are not well informed of the (numerical)
effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if they were
informed that they were only about 50% effective at keeping them
alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm) would be half
would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack of adequate
and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the other half
would continue riding and ignore the statistics because taking risks
is part of bicycle riding.

What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and NHTSA that there
was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a major accident
while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of
getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
effectiveness of your safety equipment.
"Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
Bicyclist 1 in 3,396


Notes drivel:

1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of not dying
from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%

2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009. Current
numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my dinner will be
cold if I search for more current numbers.

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

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 08 May 2022 06:25:06 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"I wrote a paper showing...."???
>Tommy wrote a paper?

"Latest CPSC Helmet Standard and US Fatality Trends"
<https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html> (June 2002)

Not to worry. Tom is never right. Hollywood read Tom's criticism and
created helmets in the opposite manner:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=spaceballs+helmet&tbm=isch>
"Spaceballs: Dark helmet gets Jammed!'
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvf38cnmO_k> (1:35)

[John B.]

On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >
>> >I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
>> >views on helmets.
>> Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
>> "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
>> espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
>>
>> You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
>> go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
>> in preventing injures.
>>
>> You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
>> anguish with no proof what so ever.
>>
>> So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
>> bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
>> course, evidence to prove it.
>
>OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>
>The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
>brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.

As far as I remember (granted always suspect) helmets were touted as a
means of limiting head injuries and there is literally miles of
studies that show that YES, they do work.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324679729_Bicycle_helmets_-_To_wear_or_not_to_wear_A_meta-analyses_of_the_effects_of_bicycle_helmets_on_injuries
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173006/

I could go on, and on, but why bother. You've made up your mind and
reality will have no effect.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
"helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
come to visit have to wear "helmets".

I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig that is up
above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive" which probably
weighs a ton, or more (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

I'd probably argue with you on your last sentence. We as bicyclists, think bicycling is very common. But is it? Its a very small percentage of the total population. And then when you figure in mileage per bicyclist, its maybe less. Does a person who rides 100 miles a year count as a bicyclist the same as a person who rides 1000 miles? Or a cyclist who rides 5000 miles? I'd bet there is a much bigger discrepancy amongst bicyclists in mileage traveled than amongst car drivers. 3000 miles for minimal car driver (12 miles per day, 6 miles each way, for 250 working days a year). 25,000 miles for heavy car driver (100 miles per day, 50 miles each way, for 250 working days a year). About 8 times difference. But with bicyclists, an active rider does 5000 miles a year. A minimal cyclist may reach 500 miles a year. Or much much less. About 10 times difference. And if a cyclist only rides 200 miles a year, its a 25 times difference.

>
> I've never found any data indicating that the numbers are different for "serious" instead of fatal
> TBIs, however "serious" might be defined. But I've seen data (which I'd have to dig out again)
> indicating concussions are more common in helmeted cyclists than in bareheaded cyclists.
>
> So: Even _if_ lightweight styrofoam helmets were tremendously effective at preventing serious or
> fatal brain injuries, why on earth promote them so avidly for an activity that is not a source of
> those injuries? Motoring travel, pedestrian travel, walking down stairs all eclipse bicycling as
> a source of TBI. Why not advocate helmets for those situations?

I think to judge dangerousness you have to define the population. How many car drivers are there? 90+% of the USA population? How many miles driven? How many hours spent driving? How many people walk (pedestrian)? 99+%? Everyone except wheelchair bound probably.

As for advocating helmets for everyone. In football, American football. Not that European soccer. Every player wears a mouthpiece. You soak the plastic mouthpiece in hot water and then bite down on it to form it to your teeth. But how are you going to injure your teeth in football? You have a facemask protecting your mouth, chin, nose, eyes, face. Your teeth are very safe playing football. Yet everyone playing football has to use a mouthpiece. Why? Perception? You are tackling, fighting, punching, kicking your opponent Therefore your teeth are in danger!!!!!! Even though the facemask 100% protects your teeth and mouth.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
> (chomp)
>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>
> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.

You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
a complicated definition. If a person survives such a crash without the
belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?

The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
getting in such a crash? For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.

But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
Seat belts have roughly zero detriments. They add a negligible dollar
cost to the car. They last forever. They are extremely easy to use. And
yes, tests show they are reasonably (not perfectly) effective. (BTW, air
bags add very little more protection, at much higher cost and some added
danger.) Seat belt benefits easily exceed their negligible detriments.

Bike helmets fail by those standards. They are a much higher percentage
of the cost of a bike, they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
replacement, they are inconvenient to transport and store, and their
effectiveness is questionable at best. All this to protect against
largely mythical dangers.



--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 5/6/2022 11:13 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

<snip>

> A friend died and you babbling about helmets to make what point? Weird....You know about statistics, no?

I'm sure that he knows about them, he just doesn't like what they prove!

I hope that no one is naïve enough to extrapolate that because a
cyclist, wearing a helmet, died after hitting their head, that this
somehow proves that helmets have no benefit. All the available evidence
proves that helmets have a significant effect in reducing traumatic
brain injury and death. <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26254573/>.

What you basically have with Frank, is one person who for years has been
desperately trying to justify a life choice that he has freely made. But
the reality is that he doesn’t need to keep trying to justify it.
Everyone makes choices about the level of risk they are willing to take.
This isn’t like Covid-19 where those that choose to not get vaccinated
or not wear masks are putting not only themselves, but also the general
public, at risk; riding without a helmet only increases risks for
themselves.

Intentionally spreading misinformation about helmets, in order to
promote an agenda to justify his own life choices, is something that he
should not be doing, and using a friend's death to try to advance that
agenda is especially deplorable.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 8 May 2022 11:21:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>> (chomp)
>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>
>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.

>You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
>kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
>a complicated definition.

Yes. The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
drivers. If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
(statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
serious injury. In other words, they would have to have experienced
an injury of some sort in order to qualify for the statistical
reduction. Those who were not involved in an accident, or survived
with injuries that were NOT treated at a hospital, where they
presumably be counted, do not qualify.

Whether the hospitals or police accurately recorded whether a seat
belt was used for those treated in the hospital is somewhat
questionable. Most of the time, they ask the survivors if they were
wearing their seat belts. The obvious answer by the survivors is "of
course I was wearing my seat belt" and those who dies as
"undetermined". This tends to produce a rather high seat belt use
among accident survivors.

It's a little better for bicycle helmet use. Standard ambulance and
ER procedures for bicycle accident victims, where a brain/head/spine
injury is suspected, is to NOT remove the helmet until after the
patient is inspected at a hospital.
<https://www.mayoclinic.org/first-aid/first-aid-spinal-injury/basics/art-20056677>
"Keep helmet on. If the person is wearing a helmet, don't remove it."
This tends to produce a more realist helmet use count, but only for
those treated in a hospital or ER.

>If a person survives such a crash without the
>belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?

Probably. I would need to read through the survey procedures to be
certain.

>The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
>getting in such a crash?

Exactly. Notice that I mumbled:

"Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of getting into an accident in
the first place and NOT on the effectiveness of your safety
equipment."

In other words, wearing a helmet or seat belt will NOT prevent someone
from getting into an accident. The claim is that should someone get
into an accident, the chances are much better of survival if they were
wearing a helmet or seat belt. (I won't go into situations where a
helmet or seat belt might contribute or aggravate an injury).

>For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
>odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
>protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
>crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
>between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
>ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.

Yep. The current trend is something like "if it saves one life, it's
justified". In other words, throw out the odds and only look at the
potential damage. For example, pain killer drug addiction is now
considered a "major problem" a major problem because a very small
percentage of users develop an addiction. Never mind that the
statistical addiction rate is tiny (23,000 out of 7 million opioid
takers in a training sample). Never mind that most opioid addictions
are to recreational drugs, not medical drugs. So, the problem is
handed over to a computer algorithm by NarxCare, which tends to deny
pain killers to many that genuinely need it. It's like swatting flies
with a sledge hammer.
"The Pain Was Unbearable. So Why Did Doctors Turn Her Away?"
<https://www.wired.com/story/opioid-drug-addiction-algorithm-chronic-pain/>
I'll stop here before I get genuinely irritated.

>But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
>helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
>Seat belts have roughly zero detriments.

I still remember the arguments over mandatory seat belt use in the
early 1960's. One could be trapped in the car by the seat belt in
case of an accident. Small children would be strangled by a shoulder
belt. Pregnancy issues and so on. It's still going on today:
<https://automobiles.uslegal.com/seat-belt-usage/why-people-ignore-seat-belts/>
I had to talk my way out of a ticket, while riding as a passenger, for
not wearing a shoulder belt because I had recently had bypass surgery
and there was a risk of ripping my chest open. I'm sure the same
logic used to justify not wearing a face mask could also be used. Face
masks and seat belts are not 100% effective and are therefore useless
and not needed.

>They add a negligible dollar cost to the car.

<https://howmuchly.com/cost-to-replace-a-seat-belt>
"According to 2022 estimates, seat belt replacement cost ranges from
$20 to $250. You have to pay $80-$100 on average for labor costs for a
qualified mechanic. The average price of the seat belt is anywhere
near $20-$150."

>They last forever.

The drivers seat belts in my 21 year old are in need of replacement.
They tend to get dirty, so I wash them every 2 years. The spring
loaded retraction mechanism has digested some debris and will
eventually need to be disassembled and cleaned. I guess by today's
throw-away standards, 21 years might seem like forever.

Marginally related drivel: Lenovo/Motorola just declared my 2 year
old Moto G Power (2020) phone to be "unsupported" and will no longer
qualify for receive updates. Product life is becoming shorter.

>They are extremely easy to use. And
>yes, tests show they are reasonably (not perfectly) effective. (BTW, air
>bags add very little more protection, at much higher cost and some added
>danger.) Seat belt benefits easily exceed their negligible detriments.

I could also argue those, but it's easier to just make my point now.
Every single point of contention for safety supports a rather vocal
minority. Pick ANY safety device, and you will find a group of
detractors ready to convince you, the public, and the government that
the safety device is in some manner dangerous, inferior, or
ineffective. I do not consider such detractors to be a problem. I do
consider the laws, rules, and regulations factories to be big
problems.

>Bike helmets fail by those standards. They are a much higher percentage
>of the cost of a bike, they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
>they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
>replacement, they are inconvenient to transport and store, and their
>effectiveness is questionable at best. All this to protect against
>largely mythical dangers.

I believe that I just demonstrated that cost, inconvenience, and
effectiveness are issues with ALL types of safety devices. The only
distinction is where you, proponents, vested interests, regulators,
and legislators set their thresholds. I don't see bicycle helmets as
an exception.

[Eric Pozharski]

with <c5fe7h9ftbo52f8bh...@4ax.com> John B wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>>On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

*SKIP*

> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
> come to visit have to wear "helmets".

Are "bosses" wearing Magic Hats?

*CUT*

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

[sms]

On 5/8/2022 10:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> Yes. The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
> an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
> drivers. If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
> (statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
> serious injury. In other words, they would have to have experienced
> an injury of some sort in order to qualify for the statistical
> reduction. Those who were not involved in an accident, or survived
> with injuries that were NOT treated at a hospital, where they
> presumably be counted, do not qualify.

There's always been an under-counting issue when it comes to bicycle
helmets because those involved in bicycle crashes where they don't seek
medical attention because the helmet mitigated their injuries to a
sufficient degree, are not counted. It's the same issue with most
protective equipment that functions as intended.

[Tom Kunich]

The difference in injuries and deaths on bicycles are dramatically different. Deaths are almost entirely being hit by autos and a helmet makes NO difference (well in the VERY occasional almost stopped car injury) Injuries are nearly always from fall-over single vehicle accidents. While a helmet can most certainly reduce the severity of an injury in most cases, it is not the magic hat and won't save your life under any but the most unusual case. While there are thousands of injuries per year a case in which a helmet actually saved your life probably only occurs once every couple of years.

Off-road MTB riders are usually involved in more serious accidents but are injured less because the landing surface is softer. I have crashed everywhere under the most unusual conditions and I have never broken a bone though I have lost lots and lots of skin. My wife just reminded me when we were descending Patterson Pass road towards Tracy and I was pedaling hard at over 40 mph and my foot pulled out of a "lollipop" pedal. My foot swung back and then forward and my foot went into the front spokes and I went off the road at speed. Luckily into the uphill side of the road.

In car collisions, the death rates from with and without a helmet is exactly the same. So the normal bicycle helmet should be considered nothing more than a fashion item and if Frank prefers to be out of fashion isn't that his business wouldn't you think?

[Frank Krygowski]

Certainly you "could go on" citing brief summaries of papers you haven't
read. That's easy! But can you not see that you didn't address my
question at all?

Here it is again: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?

Bicycling is and has always been one of the least contributors to the
problem of Traumatic Brain Injury. Again, last I looked, well over 99%
of TBI fatalities had nothing to do with bicycling. My friend's
unfortunate experience is incredibly rare, blessedly rare.

There are still serious questions about the level of protectiveness of
bike helmets, even if nobody says there is zero protection. (If there
were no questions, you wouldn't find papers trying to determine
protection levels.)

But if these thin, fragile, lightweight, disposable hats _are_ effective
protection, why are they being wasted on an activity that produces only
one half of one percent of the danger? Why _not_ push them on
pedestrians, who are actually at more risk per mile traveled than
bicyclists? Why not have at _least_ elderly people wear them all the
time around the house, since falls in the home are a much more common
cause of serious TBI? Why not add such simple protection to motorists,
whose seat belts and air bags fail them over 35,000 times per year?

Why not answer my question?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/8/2022 3:02 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:13:35 PM UTC-5, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>>
>> The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
>> brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.
>>
>> But that's false. The easiest indication it's false comes from fatality data. And that data is
>> the best available because fatalities are tracked most accurately.
>>
>> So what percentage of American TBI fatalities are bicyclists? Take a guess. 50%? 30%? 15%? 10%?

...

>>
>> The correct answer, last time I looked it up, was four tenths of one percent. It was far less than
>> the percentage of TBI fatalities among pedestrians. Way, way less than motorists. WAY less than
>> people just walking around their homes. Bicycling is, and has always been, a negligible percentage
>> of American TBI fatalities. And that's despite bicycling being a very common activity in America.
>
> I'd probably argue with you on your last sentence. We as bicyclists, think bicycling is very common. But is it?

Yes, it is. You, like many avid cyclists, think "bicyclist" is defined
as "Guy wearing lycra riding an expensive machine made of exotic
materials for many thousands of miles per year." But there are regular
national surveys of American recreation, and by the standards of those
surveys, bicycling is one of the most common recreational activities in
America.

> Its a very small percentage of the total population. And then when you figure in mileage per bicyclist, its maybe less. Does a person who rides 100 miles a year count as a bicyclist the same as a person who rides 1000 miles?

There are researchers and agencies that attempt to measure hazards per
mile. Britain has for years gathered data on miles traveled by various
modes, including walking, and published relative risk figures. In the
U.S. that job is more difficult, but Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has sort
of specialized in it. Both Pucher and Britain's data indicates bicycling
is safer than walking, in terms of fatalities or serious injuries per
mile traveled.

When, oh when, will we begin demanding that pedestrians wear helmets?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/8/2022 11:46 AM, sms wrote:
> On 5/6/2022 11:13 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A friend died and you babbling about helmets to make what point?
>> Weird....You know about statistics, no?
>
> I'm sure that he knows about them, he just doesn't like what they prove!
>
> I hope that no one is naïve enough to extrapolate that because a
> cyclist, wearing a helmet, died after hitting their head, that this
> somehow proves that helmets have no benefit. All the available evidence
> proves that helmets have a significant effect in reducing traumatic
> brain injury and death. <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26254573/>.

And on the other hand:
https://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-6757%2808%2900649-9/fulltext

Dr. Crocker conducted a similar study. He stated ahead of time that his
objective was to gather evidence to promote an all-ages mandatory helmet
law for the Austin, TX area. He gathered information on all cyclists
presenting to the area hospitals for treatment.

Unfortunately for his cause, he gathered data on not only helmet use,
but on alcohol use. His surveys and analysis showed alcohol was strongly
associated with head injuries in bicyclists. But when he accounted for
the confounding effect of alcohol use, the effect of helmets protecting
against head injury was found to not be statistically significant. Last
I heard, Dr. Crocker dropped his lobbying for a mandatory helmet law.

This raises a significant question regarding studies like the one Scharf
points to. Did the researchers record and compensate for alcohol use?
Very few such papers have done so.

And if the real problem is really being drunk, rather than being
bareheaded, is there any sense in trying to convince drunks to strap on
helmets? What's the likelihood of any success?

>
> What you basically have with Frank, is one person who for years has been
> desperately trying to justify a life choice that he has freely made. But
> the reality is that he doesn’t need to keep trying to justify it.

Scharf is another who is avoiding my main question. The facts are,
bicycling is a very, very minor contributor to serious or fatal TBI
incidents. It's dwarfed almost 100 to one by other causes.

So why is _bicycling_ saddled with helmet shaming? Why are helmets not
promoted for the _other_ 99% of TBI victims?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A few years
ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000 vehicle-per-day 5
lane road near my home. I rode my bike over to watch for a bit.

I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck, park the
pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the roadway, then put a
hard hat on his head.

The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a meteor. And
really, his biggest chance of a head injury would have been while
driving the truck, unless he tripped on exit. But apparently no
regulation said to wear a helmet while driving or exiting.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/8/2022 2:46 PM, sms wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 10:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yes.  The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
>> an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
>> drivers.  If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
>> (statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
>> serious injury.

If that sort of undercounting were significant, it would show up as an
otherwise unexplained drop in the number of serious bike injuries or
fatalities. Such drops have not occurred, especially for fatalities.

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

And examining the other side of the coin: I don't believe any agency
will be noting the failure of my friend's helmet to prevent his brain
injury fatality. Since it was a solo crash with no motor vehicle
involvement, it's not likely to make the usual databases.



--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 8 May 2022 16:14:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>And examining the other side of the coin: I don't believe any agency
>will be noting the failure of my friend's helmet to prevent his brain
>injury fatality. Since it was a solo crash with no motor vehicle
>involvement, it's not likely to make the usual databases.

For your amusement:

"What We Learned from Tracking Cycling Deaths for a Year"
(Jan 29, 2021)
<https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/what-we-learned-tracking-cycling-deaths-year/>

I randomly clicked on the red dots on the US map. Part of the
database for each accident appears in a box. There's a "Suspected
DUI" field. Most of the one's I read showed a blank for no data. A
few said "no" and none showed a DUI. There's no mention of drinking
or DUI in the article. There's more info at:
<https://bikemaps.org>
but the DUI and hit-n-run fields have been dropped.

Of course, the conclusion and recommended solutions have little or
nothing to do with the data:

Where to Go from Here
"Despite this harrowing data, we remain optimistic that safer roads
for cyclists are possible. Across the country and the world, leaders
are pushing legislation and expanding infrastructure projects to make
roads safer for users who are not in a car."

So there you have it. It's all about building infrastructure, for
profit of course.

Also see the "A Note on Our Methodology" section near the bottom of
the web page for additional horrors.

[AMuzi]

On 5/8/2022 3:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 11:46 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 5/6/2022 11:13 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A friend died and you babbling about helmets to make what
>>> point? Weird....You know about statistics, no?
>>
>> I'm sure that he knows about them, he just doesn't like
>> what they prove!
>>

>> I hope that no one is naïve enough to extrapolate that

>> doesn’t need to keep trying to justify it.

>
> Scharf is another who is avoiding my main question. The
> facts are, bicycling is a very, very minor contributor to
> serious or fatal TBI incidents. It's dwarfed almost 100 to
> one by other causes.
>
> So why is _bicycling_ saddled with helmet shaming? Why are
> helmets not promoted for the _other_ 99% of TBI victims?
>
>

An obvious solution is to require helmets for drunken
bicyclists and seat belts for drunk drivers!

(which would be as effective as 'banning firearms for
convicted criminals' who by definition are lawless.)

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

[AMuzi]

It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
motor vehicles.

[John B.]

Rather like Tommy. I provide data and you provide supposition and
opinion.

As Kipling wrote, "Colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady are sisters under
their skins".
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.

Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
who was NOT wearing a helmet.

As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
your life:

https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

Probably true. Seatbelts, cheap. Airbags, more expensive. But both compared to the cost of a $40,000 car, somewhat negligible. A helmet will cost anywhere from $50 to $300. That is the cost of Bontrager helmets when I did a Google search. Tommy boy's preferred Wavecell helmet is up to $300. But Bontrager sells much cheaper ones too. $50. Walmart has bicycle helmets for $7.91, $9.59, $13.71, $14.75, $16.99, $18.28, $19.99, $21.99, $30.70, $34.97. And maybe a few more prices I missed. Google search on Walmart bicycle helmets. I have no idea what the average price of bicycles is now days. Couple hundred dollars? Couple thousand dollars? Wide range in bicycle cost. Walmart has road bikes listed at $269 and $329 and $449. Drop bars. And hybrid/mountain bikes listed at $128 and $192 and $469. Trek probably has bikes listed from $1000 to $14,000. So the cheapest Walmart helmet at $7.91 paired with the most expensive Walmart road bike at $449 is 1.76%. The cheapest Bontrager helmet at $50 paired with the most expensive Trek bike at $14,000 is 0.36%.

> They last forever. They are extremely easy to use. And
> yes, tests show they are reasonably (not perfectly) effective. (BTW, air
> bags add very little more protection, at much higher cost and some added
> danger.) Seat belt benefits easily exceed their negligible detriments.
>
> Bike helmets fail by those standards. They are a much higher percentage
> of the cost of a bike,

See my reply above. Maybe they are a higher percentage of the cost, maybe not.

> they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,

Are they? My helmets have always had nylon straps that you adjust with those clasps located underneath the ears and under the chin. Its a pretty simple process to understand. Slide the straps through the clasps until they are in the right spot. Even our resident genius Tommy seems to be able to adjust his helmet straps. We should be happy to have Tommy around to establish the absolute lowest threshold for tasks. If Tommy can do it, it can't be too hard.

> they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
> replacement,

Fragile? The only helmets I have broken were in crashes. And after the crash, breaking the helmet was the least of my worries. So I have found helmets to be tough enough. Not fragile at all. I have read and heard that helmets should be replaced every so often. Every 5 years? Or 10 years? Due to sunlight or age degrading the plastic and/or foam. I can believe that. Very few things last forever. Leather shoes need replacement too. Either from wear and tear. Or the leather just becomes fragile and cracks from age.

> they are inconvenient to transport and store,

Huh? I transport helmets by just putting them on the backseat or floorboards of the car. Or wearing them of course. Seems pretty easy to me. And for storage, I just put the helmet beside my bike shoes. Or hang it from the brake lever. Pretty darn easy storage. To me at least.

> and their
> effectiveness is questionable at best.

OK. There is debate and argument on how protective helmets are depending on what kind of crash they are involved in. Get run over by 9 of the semi's wheels and you are almost certainly dead. In your friend's case he fell over at slow speeds with a helmet and died. I have hit a car windshield with no helmet and lived. And hit a car windshield with a helmet and lived. And hit the pavement with a helmet and lived. So all I can conclude is their effectiveness is variable.

> All this to protect against largely mythical dangers.
>

Mythical? I don't think crashes with cars and trucks is mythical. Or even crashes without cars or trucks. They are real dangers and can cause injury. No myths. Crashes are real. And no, I am NOT saying all the cars and trucks are going to run you over and kill you. No, thankfully. Its just a small percent that run you over and try to kill you. But it is a real danger. Not mythical. And crashes do happen. Ride long enough, and you will crash. Watch any bicycle race on TV and you will see a crash. Crashes happen.

Frank, are you telling us you have never ever been involved in a crash? You have never ever hit the ground? You have never ever hit a car? You are one lucky biker. Or great biker. Never ever been involved in a crash. Wow. Is Tommy boy even that lucky or skilled?



>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer. About 7650 people are going to die of skin cancer in 2022.
https://www.aad.org/media/stats-skin-cancer
CDC says about 1000 bicyclists die every year.
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html
So maybe the smartest thing to do is restrict, prevent people from going outside and getting exposed to sunlight which is a contributor to skin cancer. Skin cancer causes 7.6 more deaths than bicycles. We can implement the never go outside in the sunlight laws right after we implement the helmets 24 hours a day laws.

[Frank Krygowski]

If you want data, here's some data.
https://www.ohiobike.org/docs.ashx?id=662629

The data is given with citations. The article is several years old, so
some of the citations may be difficult to track down, but nothing much
has changed in the years since that was written.

If you disagree with parts of it, please be specific. And include your
own citations.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 5/8/2022 2:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a variant of
> 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense of self-preservation
> would ever propose required helmets in motor vehicles.

This afternoon we had lunch with my son and daughter for mother’s day.

He was concerned that he had locked his keys in his day pack, in the
trunk of his car because when we were in the restaurant he couldn’t find
them. But no problem he said, he can unlock his car with his phone.

This led to a discussion of the various safety features in his car that
he bought last year. It has multiple collision avoidance features like
automatic braking if he gets too close to the car in front of him and
the car in front suddenly slams on the brakes. It has lane-departure
prevention if it senses that you're drifting into the next lane and your
turn signal is not on. It warns you, when you activate your turn signal
to change lanes, if there is a car in your blinds spot. It has nine
airbags, a collapsible steering column, safety glass, a padded
dashboard, and of course lap and shoulder belts. It has adaptive cruise
control that slows down if the car in front of you slows down, then goes
back to the preset speed when it’s safe to do so. This is not a fancy
luxury car either, it's a mid-range Hyundai Sonata.

Every time I here the ridiculous excuse of “well we don’t require
driving helmets so why should anyone where a bicycle helmet?” I know
that the person promoting that idea is really clueless or is trying to
promote some strange agenda. If a bicycle came with airbags then it
would be a different story. Of course there actually is an airbag for
cyclists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E82Gdy2_wbA.

[Frank Krygowski]

That's true. For the most part, helmet laws and intense helmet promotion
began by those who were not cyclists. They were able to gain popularity
in large part because cyclists were viewed as an 'out group'.

But unlike other 'out groups,' cyclists took up the cause en masse. It
was as if southern blacks had said "Make us sit in the back of the bus,
and don't let us use your water fountains." It was as if Germany's Jews
said "We get to wear yellow stars! They're for our own good!"

Sorry of those are offensive for anyone, but ISTM that the parallel is
quite close.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

One theme I have always heard about guns is never ever put your finger on the trigger and point the gun at anything unless you want to kill it. Real gun, toy gun, whatever. Although maybe a finger gun is exempted. But Alec Baldwin is being sued by Fox News and 2nd Amendment lovers and Gun Rights nuts etc. because he accidentally killed someone on a movie set. Where one would expect all the prop guns to not be able to actually shoot and kill someone. And there would not ever be any real bullets allowed on set. One would expect that. So I can understand why the road crew guy would wear a helmet at the construction site at night.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/8/2022 7:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
> who was NOT wearing a helmet.

Wow. But don't apply that policy to the >99% of Americans who suffer
serious brain injury from non-bicycling events?

Again, it's astonishing and disgusting that bicyclists are willing to
persecute their fellow cyclists.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/8/2022 8:10 PM, sms wrote:
>
> This led to a discussion of the various safety features in his car that
> he bought last year. It has multiple collision avoidance features like
> automatic braking if he gets too close to the car in front of him and
> the car in front suddenly slams on the brakes. It has lane-departure
> prevention if it senses that you're drifting into the next lane and your
> turn signal is not on. It warns you, when you activate your turn signal
> to change lanes, if there is a car in your blinds spot. It has nine
> airbags, a collapsible steering column, safety glass, a padded
> dashboard, and of course lap and shoulder belts. It has adaptive cruise
> control that slows down if the car in front of you slows down, then goes
> back to the preset speed when it’s safe to do so. This is not a fancy
> luxury car either, it's a mid-range Hyundai Sonata.
>
> Every time I here the ridiculous excuse of “well we don’t require
> driving helmets so why should anyone where a bicycle helmet?” I know
> that the person promoting that idea is really clueless or is trying to
> promote some strange agenda. If a bicycle came with airbags then it
> would be a different story.

Scharf ignores the most relevant point: Every year in the U.S., the
in-car safety devices he praises fail to keep 35,000 people alive.
Perhaps a driving helmet might help. After all, they would not require
minimal weight or excellent ventilation. They could be quite robust, as
for motor sports.

Each year, fewer than 1000 bicyclist die. And as with my friend, many of
those who die were wearing helmets. The requirements for light weight
and ventilation limit them to only minimal protection. (Hell, read the
certification standards!)

It's nonsense to pretend that bicycling is so terribly dangerous as to
require helmets, and to pretend that bike helmets are so powerfully
protective as to justify their intense promotion.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Lets see... you post a reference to a U.S. organization the "
Occupational Safety and Health Administration", a U.S. Government
agency, and then you talk about "lives in a dictatorship".

Now I know that your brain "misses a beat" now and then but U.S.
Government and Dictatorship?

I wonder whether you are referring to the rather strict anti-Covid
rules here? I mean, wear a mask, don't get close to anyone, have your
temperature taken before entering a government building, etc.?

Well, lets see... California has -about- one half the population of
Thailand and the data concerning the Covid thing shows that while
Thailand had 29,091 deaths due to the disease, California, with about
half the population, had 90,804. On a per capita basis Thai - 415/1
million population, California - 2,298/1M.

In this case I do believe that "dictatorship" really was better. Or
perhaps another way of putting it, "Our system worked pretty well,
while your's didn't" (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well, that is your government in action isn't. The U.S. Congress (you
know those fellows you select to rule over you) made a law, way back
in 1970, "The Occupational Safety and Health Administration act",
which resulted in the establishment of an organization to manage and
enforce the new regulations.

As for sitting in offices... well statistics show that OSHA made some
151,446 inspection in the 5 years 2016 - 2020, that is what? 82 a day
(if they work Sundays and holidays)?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Thanks (sarcastically) for focusing on the extreme most favorable to
your argument. But as Jeff reported, the average cost of a _replacement_
seat belt is $20 to $150. The original, installed on the production
line, probably adds less then $20 to the price of a car. Median car
price is over $45,000 these days. The seat belt is a few hundredths of
a percent of the cost of a car.

Let's look at the other end of the bike market - say, the free bikes
(from the police department's 'found bike' inventory) that our club
rehabilitated and gave to impoverished families. Those families couldn't
afford a $10 garage sale bike. But in many states, the kids who got them
could be ticketed for riding them without a $10 helmet. (And yes, it's
been shown time and again that minorities are over-prosecuted for helmet
law violations.)

>> they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
>
> Are they? My helmets have always had nylon straps that you adjust with those clasps located underneath the ears and under the chin. Its a pretty simple process to understand. Slide the straps through the clasps until they are in the right spot. Even our resident genius Tommy seems to be able to adjust his helmet straps.

Have you ever volunteered at a bike rodeo? When I have, most of the
helmets were terribly adjusted. The last one I worked at was one I
volunteered as a bike mechanic. I got to do almost no bike work. Almost
all my time was spent trying to adjust helmets.

Hell, a few years ago I stopped a well known political figure in our
village to tell him "If you're going to make your kids wear a helmet, at
least make sure they're not on backwards." And years ago - the year I
testified against a Mandatory Helmet Law at the statehouse - one helmet
promotion group had a helmet flyer featuring, on its cover, a kid
wearing a helmet backwards.

>> they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
>> replacement,
>
> Fragile? The only helmets I have broken were in crashes.

Fragile! Back when I wore one regularly, we did a roughly one month bike
tour of Ireland. We landed in Dublin. The second day there, I was
walking my bike down a grassy slope in a park, carrying my helmet in my
left hand. I slipped on the wet grass and landed on my butt. The helmet
I was carrying was broken in pieces, apparently because I tightened my
arm to my torso as I fell.

> I have read and heard that helmets should be replaced every so often. Every 5 years? Or 10 years? Due to sunlight or age degrading the plastic and/or foam. I can believe that. Very few things last forever.

And yet, the only test on record of an old, old helmet - an ancient Bell
Biker, tested by probably the most prominent helmet promoter in the U.S.
- showed the helmet did as well as a new helmet.

"You must buy another one of our products every few years!" is a great
marketing strategy.

>> they are inconvenient to transport and store,
>
> Huh? I transport helmets by just putting them on the backseat or floorboards of the car. Or wearing them of course. Seems pretty easy to me. And for storage, I just put the helmet beside my bike shoes. Or hang it from the brake lever. Pretty darn easy storage. To me at least.

Where do you store your helmet when you park your bike at a nice
restaurant? Sure, you can wear it inside - it's a great look! - but few
people are that geeky. You can hang it on your bike, but it may be gone
when you return. (I did have one stolen once.) You can't lock it with a
U-lock. You can thread a cable lock through it, but that's a bit of a
hassle.

And how about taking it overseas? We've taken our folding Bikes Friday
across the ocean three times. It packs in a suitcase - but there's no
room for a helmet. The Bike Friday community has had discussions about
how to carry a helmet overseas. The weirdest recommendation has been to
wear it on the plane. For us, that's been a non-problem.

BTW, one of my wife's helmet had its thin ornamental plastic skin
distort from the heat of our car parked in the sun.

>> and their
>> effectiveness is questionable at best.
>
> OK. There is debate and argument on how protective helmets are depending on what kind of crash they are involved in. Get run over by 9 of the semi's wheels and you are almost certainly dead. In your friend's case he fell over at slow speeds with a helmet and died. I have hit a car windshield with no helmet and lived. And hit a car windshield with a helmet and lived. And hit the pavement with a helmet and lived. So all I can conclude is their effectiveness is variable.

It should be obvious, your experience says nothing about the helmet's
protective value.

>> All this to protect against largely mythical dangers.
>>
>
> Mythical? I don't think crashes with cars and trucks is mythical. Or even crashes without cars or trucks. They are real dangers and can cause injury. No myths. Crashes are real. And no, I am NOT saying all the cars and trucks are going to run you over and kill you. No, thankfully. Its just a small percent that run you over and try to kill you. But it is a real danger. Not mythical. And crashes do happen. Ride long enough, and you will crash. Watch any bicycle race on TV and you will see a crash. Crashes happen.

Of course crashes happen. But people who wring hands about bike crashes
willfully ignore the far, far greater number of crashes that happen to
people NOT on bikes! They pretend that falling and hitting one's head
happens frequently on bikes, but rarely in other circumstances. It's
perfectly clear that that is not only false, it's backwards!

Again, roughly 99.4% of fatal TBI cases have nothing to do with
bicycling. The association of bicycling with serious or fatal TBI is a
marketing myth.

> Frank, are you telling us you have never ever been involved in a crash? You have never ever hit the ground? You have never ever hit a car? You are one lucky biker. Or great biker. Never ever been involved in a crash. Wow.

As I've said, I've fallen quite a few times back when I was doing
moderately adventurous mountain biking. Not high speed stuff; more like
narrow woodland trails, but some scary stuff in old strip mining
territories. I was never injured.

I've suffered exactly two moving on-road falls, plus IIRC just one
stationary lost-my-balance topple. My first moving fall was biking home
after work, descending a super-steep (probably 15%) city street in
winter at walking pace, when I turned to avoid broken glass and slipped
on gravel. I scraped my knee and tore my jacket. The second was when the
front forks of our tandem suddenly snapped off on hitting a pothole at
10 mph. I hurt my shoulder.

I've never fallen because of a car crash, never slid out at speed on a
turn, never run into another cyclist, never been taken down by a dog,
etc. I've ridden avidly as an adult since 1973.

I certainly had some falls as a kid, but I honestly remember the details
of only one. It has a helmet moral. Basically, if I'd have worn a helmet
it would certainly have been smashed, and many people would certainly
have said "It saved your life." But I wore no helmet, I said "Wow, that
hurt!" and I got up and continued delivering papers by bike.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sun, 8 May 2022 17:10:12 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Just curious,
You use the term " lap and shoulder belts". Are you referring to the
old 3 way belts and the "s" indicates that there is several belts or
is this some new two belt system?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

> "lives in a dictatorship"

pot, kettle, black.

[Frank Krygowski]

You're venturing into "benefits vs. detriments" territory. Welcome!

Check the references I gave in the PDF I linked for John. At that time,
I'd found four studies that attempted to compare bicycling's risks with
its benefits. All found the benefits far outweighed the risks. Since
then I've found at least one more such study, perhaps two, with the same
general conclusion.

See if you can find a study that disagrees. I doubt you will.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

I don't know but it's a very complex situation.

There are longstanding contractual obligations for armorers
and handling of firearms on movie sets which were not
properly observed. The live ammo should not have even been
on the set. It was from another production and the owner had
tried to retrieve it but Mr Baldwin, producer in both
ventures told him to 'write it off'. Speaking of which the
producer (Mr Baldwin) has an obligation and liability for
hiring and supervision of the armorer (sketchy all around in
this case).

It was an 'accident' about as much as a drunken texter
plowing through red light into a peloton is an 'accident'.

p.s. SpelChek doesn't like 'peloton'. Harumph.

[John B.]

Well disregarding the shootings, I suspect that it isn't a matter of
"wearing a helmet at the construction site after night", it is a
matter of "wearing a helmet while at the construction site".

Generally safety rules are made to be all encompassing to avoid
arguments such as Frank is making at the moment about bike helmets.
It seems perfectly logical to argue that one shouldn't have to wear a
hard at on a construction site... well, until someone does get hurt
and their survivors sue the company for Umpteen Million Dollars
alleging that you should have made their Dearly Departed wear a hard
hat.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

Lets add in the cost of the airbags too. That will get the total safety cost closer to my 0.36% for Trek Bontrager. Is 36 hundredths close to a few hundredths?

>
> Let's look at the other end of the bike market - say, the free bikes
> (from the police department's 'found bike' inventory) that our club
> rehabilitated and gave to impoverished families. Those families couldn't
> afford a $10 garage sale bike. But in many states, the kids who got them
> could be ticketed for riding them without a $10 helmet. (And yes, it's
> been shown time and again that minorities are over-prosecuted for helmet
> law violations.)

I am sure I have seen many stories about police or maybe Walmart giving away free bike helmets. And I think I have heard about free bike giveaways like your club did, also giving a free helmet with the bike. May I suggest doing that in the future?

> >> they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
> >
> > Are they? My helmets have always had nylon straps that you adjust with those clasps located underneath the ears and under the chin. Its a pretty simple process to understand. Slide the straps through the clasps until they are in the right spot. Even our resident genius Tommy seems to be able to adjust his helmet straps.
> Have you ever volunteered at a bike rodeo? When I have, most of the
> helmets were terribly adjusted. The last one I worked at was one I
> volunteered as a bike mechanic. I got to do almost no bike work. Almost
> all my time was spent trying to adjust helmets.

I am well aware that sometimes even the simplest things are the most complicated. I still consider adjusting a helmet to be pretty simple. If you are going to bother wearing a helmet, adjust the sizing correctly.

>
> Hell, a few years ago I stopped a well known political figure in our
> village to tell him "If you're going to make your kids wear a helmet, at
> least make sure they're not on backwards." And years ago - the year I
> testified against a Mandatory Helmet Law at the statehouse - one helmet
> promotion group had a helmet flyer featuring, on its cover, a kid
> wearing a helmet backwards.
> >> they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
> >> replacement,
> >
> > Fragile? The only helmets I have broken were in crashes.
> Fragile! Back when I wore one regularly, we did a roughly one month bike
> tour of Ireland. We landed in Dublin. The second day there, I was
> walking my bike down a grassy slope in a park, carrying my helmet in my
> left hand. I slipped on the wet grass and landed on my butt. The helmet
> I was carrying was broken in pieces, apparently because I tightened my
> arm to my torso as I fell.

Strange things can occur. Your helmet broke when in 99.99999999999999% of the time it should not have. Kind of like your helmeted friend falling over and dying with a helmet on his head. But I have had helmets that did not break from everyday usage. And ones that did break when crashed. As you would expect. So from my experience, helmets are not fragile. And I am sure they undergo some kind of testing that hits them to see if they break. They pass that test.

An example. Counterpoint. Analogy. Drinking glasses made out of glass. They are fragile. Drop them on the floor and you can expect them to break. But sometimes they do not break. Or wash them by hand in the metal sink. Probably won't break even though you are bumping them into the metal sink and the pots and pans in the sink. I use glass drinking glasses and do not break them. I use helmets and do not break them.

> > I have read and heard that helmets should be replaced every so often. Every 5 years? Or 10 years? Due to sunlight or age degrading the plastic and/or foam. I can believe that. Very few things last forever.
> And yet, the only test on record of an old, old helmet - an ancient Bell
> Biker, tested by probably the most prominent helmet promoter in the U.S.
> - showed the helmet did as well as a new helmet.
>
> "You must buy another one of our products every few years!" is a great
> marketing strategy.

I have never bought into the buy a new helmet every year mythology. I keep mine for many years. Only buy a new one when I see a new one on sale and the old one is getting kind of worn out from usage and is smelling too much. Or its adjustment, tightening system has gotten to loose. I am all for keeping your old helmet and using it for a long time. But if you do get in a crash, maybe then reconsider whether you need a new one to replace the now crushed, squished one.

> >> they are inconvenient to transport and store,
> >
> > Huh? I transport helmets by just putting them on the backseat or floorboards of the car. Or wearing them of course. Seems pretty easy to me. And for storage, I just put the helmet beside my bike shoes. Or hang it from the brake lever. Pretty darn easy storage. To me at least.
> Where do you store your helmet when you park your bike at a nice
> restaurant? Sure, you can wear it inside - it's a great look! - but few
> people are that geeky. You can hang it on your bike, but it may be gone
> when you return. (I did have one stolen once.) You can't lock it with a
> U-lock. You can thread a cable lock through it, but that's a bit of a
> hassle.

I have used the cable lock through the vents on the helmet trick many times. It works. And its very easy. Other times I just wrap the strap around the downtube and front wheel. So its unlocked. But I've never had one stolen.

>
> And how about taking it overseas? We've taken our folding Bikes Friday
> across the ocean three times. It packs in a suitcase - but there's no
> room for a helmet. The Bike Friday community has had discussions about
> how to carry a helmet overseas. The weirdest recommendation has been to
> wear it on the plane. For us, that's been a non-problem.

When I traveled overseas with my full size non folding bike, I packed the helmet in the same cardboard box as the bike. Or you could pack it into your regular luggage. Like I did with my panniers. A duffel bag or box with all the other gear. I think I used my handlebar bag as a carryon bag. How to carry my helmet on a flight is down near the very bottom of my worries and troubles.

>
> BTW, one of my wife's helmet had its thin ornamental plastic skin
> distort from the heat of our car parked in the sun.
> >> and their
> >> effectiveness is questionable at best.
> >
> > OK. There is debate and argument on how protective helmets are depending on what kind of crash they are involved in. Get run over by 9 of the semi's wheels and you are almost certainly dead. In your friend's case he fell over at slow speeds with a helmet and died. I have hit a car windshield with no helmet and lived. And hit a car windshield with a helmet and lived. And hit the pavement with a helmet and lived. So all I can conclude is their effectiveness is variable.
> It should be obvious, your experience says nothing about the helmet's
> protective value.

No. Very wrong. My experience has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the helmet's protective value. I am reminded of that protective value every single day of my life. Or every single day since age 12. When I was 12, riding my bike to 7th grade. I was involved in a car bike crash. After regaining consciousness in the hospital, I discovered a lot of stiches in my forehead. A scar. A big scar developed from that. And every single day since then, when I look in a mirror, or see a picture of myself, I see what not wearing a helmet can cause. A large scar on my forehead. If I had been wearing a helmet that day over four decades ago, I would not have a daily reminder of how protective a helmet can be.

> >> All this to protect against largely mythical dangers.
> >>
> >
> > Mythical? I don't think crashes with cars and trucks is mythical. Or even crashes without cars or trucks. They are real dangers and can cause injury. No myths. Crashes are real. And no, I am NOT saying all the cars and trucks are going to run you over and kill you. No, thankfully. Its just a small percent that run you over and try to kill you. But it is a real danger. Not mythical. And crashes do happen. Ride long enough, and you will crash. Watch any bicycle race on TV and you will see a crash. Crashes happen.
> Of course crashes happen. But people who wring hands about bike crashes
> willfully ignore the far, far greater number of crashes that happen to
> people NOT on bikes! They pretend that falling and hitting one's head
> happens frequently on bikes, but rarely in other circumstances. It's
> perfectly clear that that is not only false, it's backwards!

Yes, more people die from tripping and hitting their head while walking or slipping in the bathtub than dies from bicycle crashes. All are bad. And it makes sense to emphasize making bathtubs and walking more safe. And bicycling too. We have grab handles in bathtubs for some old people. And we make steps a uniform size so people won't trip as easily on stairs. And we try to make bicyclists wear helmets. But still more bathtub and stair tripping, slipping deaths. Just because we can't stop the top killers, does not mean we should not stop the small killers. Its called low hanging fruit. Take the small gains you can even if the big gain remains out of reach. I do not see anything wrong with this. If we save a life with a helmet on a bicyclist head, then that is good. Celebrate. And mourn for the bathtub slipper death. But be happy you saved the bicycle death with a helmet.

>
> Again, roughly 99.4% of fatal TBI cases have nothing to do with
> bicycling. The association of bicycling with serious or fatal TBI is a
> marketing myth.
> > Frank, are you telling us you have never ever been involved in a crash? You have never ever hit the ground? You have never ever hit a car? You are one lucky biker. Or great biker. Never ever been involved in a crash. Wow.
> As I've said, I've fallen quite a few times back when I was doing
> moderately adventurous mountain biking. Not high speed stuff; more like
> narrow woodland trails, but some scary stuff in old strip mining
> territories. I was never injured.
>
> I've suffered exactly two moving on-road falls, plus IIRC just one
> stationary lost-my-balance topple. My first moving fall was biking home
> after work, descending a super-steep (probably 15%) city street in
> winter at walking pace, when I turned to avoid broken glass and slipped
> on gravel. I scraped my knee and tore my jacket. The second was when the
> front forks of our tandem suddenly snapped off on hitting a pothole at
> 10 mph. I hurt my shoulder.
>
> I've never fallen because of a car crash, never slid out at speed on a
> turn, never run into another cyclist, never been taken down by a dog,

A dog did sort of take me out. I think 7th or 8th grade. Biking home from school. Junior high. Dog ran out of the yard and ran sideways into my rear wheel. His body slammed into my rear wheel sideways. Bent the rear wheel way out of shape. Tacoed it.

[John B.]

My spelling checker translates it to "kiloton" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Actually we have had governments ranging from dictatorships, to
democracy, and even one known drug Baron was almost appointed as P.M.

And in spite of Tommy's comments, for the average, everyday, person
here it makes no difference at all.

In fact under one "Democratically Elected" government who, like the
U.S. was weak on crime suppression, crime got so great that women
stopped wearing gold jewelry for fear of street thievery. Ultimately
the Army turfed out the civilian government and we ended up with
soldiers on every corner and thieves being shot out of hand. The
overwhelming feeling I heard expressed over this change from democracy
to dictatorship was "Thank God!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Roger Merriman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 2:46 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 10:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Yes.  The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
>>> an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
>>> drivers.  If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
>>> (statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
>>> serious injury.
>
> If that sort of undercounting were significant, it would show up as an
> otherwise unexplained drop in the number of serious bike injuries or
> fatalities. Such drops have not occurred, especially for fatalities.
>
> http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
>
> And examining the other side of the coin: I don't believe any agency
> will be noting the failure of my friend's helmet to prevent his brain
> injury fatality. Since it was a solo crash with no motor vehicle
> involvement, it's not likely to make the usual databases.
>
>
>
On the whole looking at a population level and noting for example the death
rates in London over the years plus the Dutch who seem to at a population
be safer than Uk, with very low helmet use rates.

Would suggest that for populations helmets are not of any use.

For individuals its seems probable that they can, though the degree is
debatable and probably depends on many other factors. Let alone the
unpredictable nature of Traumatic brain injury’s mainly due to our lack of
understanding due to fairly little research, historically.

In short Helmets are a distraction, infrastructure works, if done well.

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TB3iFhTovPzQCAdrwn6bLH.jpg

[Tom Kunich]

But we can do something about it and this November will. Whereas, John lives in a dictatorship because it is all he has ever known in the military and likely afterwards,.

[sms]

On 5/9/2022 4:41 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 2:46 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2022 10:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Yes.  The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
>>>> an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
>>>> drivers.  If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
>>>> (statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
>>>> serious injury.
>>
>> If that sort of undercounting were significant, it would show up as an
>> otherwise unexplained drop in the number of serious bike injuries or
>> fatalities. Such drops have not occurred, especially for fatalities.
>>
>> http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
>>
>> And examining the other side of the coin: I don't believe any agency
>> will be noting the failure of my friend's helmet to prevent his brain
>> injury fatality. Since it was a solo crash with no motor vehicle
>> involvement, it's not likely to make the usual databases.
>>
>>
>>
> On the whole looking at a population level and noting for example the death
> rates in London over the years plus the Dutch who seem to at a population
> be safer than Uk, with very low helmet use rates.
>
> Would suggest that for populations helmets are not of any use.

Well of course that's ridiculous. We all know the reason why the Dutch
numbers are so low, it's because they've invested so heavily in bicycle
infrastructure, as well as the fact that when you have more cyclists on
the road it improves safety for all of them.

Read <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm#>
and
<https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure>
and
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753515001472> and
file them under "more facts and statistics that Frank doesn't like."

The abstract of the last citation is succinct and cuts to the core of
the issue: "Factors found to contribute to this improvement include the
establishment of a road hierarchy with large traffic-calmed areas where
through traffic is kept out. A heavily used freeway network shifts motor
vehicles from streets with high cycling levels. This reduces exposure to
high-speed motor vehicles. Separated bicycle paths and intersection
treatments decrease the likelihood of bicycle–motor vehicle crashes. The
high amount of bicycle use increases safety as a higher bicycle modal
share corresponds with a lower share of driving and greater awareness of
cyclists among drivers. Low cycling speed was also found to contribute
to the high level of cycling safety in the Netherlands." All of these go
against the precepts of the discredited "vehicular cycling" philosophy,
OMG, "separated bicycle paths!," what were the Dutch thinking?!

[Tom Kunich]

I see that Russell is crying in an attempt to make everyone believe that they should wear helmets regardless the don't save lives. I recommend them because they save skin at least. Someone sent me this strange address that looked like it was something on Amazon but pulled up a site labeled "Paypal". However, it wasn't Paypal or anything to so with it as far as I could tell. What it was was a very carefully crafted paper on the lack of value of helmets. When I finally got to the end of it imagine my surprise that it was signed "Frank Kragowski". Now far be it from me to compliment anything that Frank would write. But that was just about the best paper I've read on helmets in a long time.

Seat belts in commercial vehicles do not work well because they are extremely poor sorts of restraints. Racing stock cars have very few injuries considering the speed and so and most of the fatalities are from fire and not collision. That is because they use 4 point restraints. But the everyday driver would never put up with such devices and hence you get the marginally effective seat belts presently in use simply because no politician is going to throw away the gravy train just to save lives. Manufacturers seeing the anger in parents because of the deaths of their teenagers in accidents have themselves developed air bags and slowly expanded these to work even in side impacts. After accidents like this these vehicles are essentially throw away, but then that works in favor of the manufacturers rather than the Insurance companies who are caught in between paying death benefits or buy most of a new car.

[AMuzi]

Thais can and do 'something about it' With some frequency.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/Government-and-society

What have you done?

Also IIRC Thailand is the only nation never colonized
(unlike USA).

[Roger Merriman]

My post you snipped essentially noted that ie infrastructure works, or
rather good stuff does.

Safety in numbers I’m not terribly convinced by, nor if I’m aware provable
ie difficult to tease out any differences, as often other changes have
happened.

London has had a big boom for example in cycling numbers but since the
death rates are so low ie single figures, it’s really not useable.

equally when Australia brought in the helmet laws, and usage dropped the
rate was largely static, from memory.

>
> Read <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm#>
> and
> <https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure>
>
> and
> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753515001472> and
> file them under "more facts and statistics that Frank doesn't like."
>
> The abstract of the last citation is succinct and cuts to the core of
> the issue: "Factors found to contribute to this improvement include the
> establishment of a road hierarchy with large traffic-calmed areas where
> through traffic is kept out. A heavily used freeway network shifts motor
> vehicles from streets with high cycling levels. This reduces exposure to
> high-speed motor vehicles. Separated bicycle paths and intersection
> treatments decrease the likelihood of bicycle–motor vehicle crashes. The
> high amount of bicycle use increases safety as a higher bicycle modal
> share corresponds with a lower share of driving and greater awareness of
> cyclists among drivers. Low cycling speed was also found to contribute
> to the high level of cycling safety in the Netherlands." All of these go
> against the precepts of the discredited "vehicular cycling" philosophy,
> OMG, "separated bicycle paths!," what were the Dutch thinking?!
>

Absolutely about half of my commute is a fairly rubbish in many way
segregated bike path, in that it’s narrow so if you do meet anyone it’s a
bit more of a squeeze and since it’s on a bypass very few folks find it
useful, but it’s so quiet it’s rare to see anyone else using it! And it’s
just shy of 5 miles…

But for me it’s a direct quiet and fast route since it bypasses most
junctions and what not.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

Scharf is so desperate to win an argument with me that he's now
switching topics completely.

Steve, this discussion has been about helmets, and more specifically
about helmet promoters (like you) grossly overstating the dangers of
cycling, and grossly overstating the value of helmets. If you had any
hope of disproving the data I've provided, you'd be sticking to the
topic instead of trying to change it.

If you want to discuss segregated bike infrastructure, do that in a
different thread. But you should be aware that it's not difficult to
demonstrate your foolishness regarding that topic as well.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 5/9/2022 7:44 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

> Safety in numbers I’m not terribly convinced by, nor if I’m aware provable
> ie difficult to tease out any differences, as often other changes have
> happened.

I don't think that it's just mere numbers, it's the change in mindset of
drivers when so many people, including their family members that are out
there on bicycles. Of course to get to those cycling levels you have to
have the infrastructure, it's chicken and the egg.

[Rolf Mantel]

Actually, it's well documented that in the Netherlands and in Germany,
it's been lots of cyclists first and the infrastructure removing
cylcists from roads second.

Rolf

[Tom Kunich]

Uh, you do realize that the constitution of Thailand changes when the wind blows? The idea is to make it appear that the people have power when in fact it is a monarchy with (unlike Europe) the monarch having absolute power. "What the King doesn't care about, no one cares about."

[Tom Kunich]

The case of the Dutch is a rather odd comparison. Firstly they are a polite group to begin with. This is something that American drivers most assuredly are not. Just driving back from Palo Alto yesterday even though the traffic was so heavy that speeds were between 50 and 65, I was cut off so sharply I had to apply my brakes dozens of times from people that HAD to go faster than the average speed of the traffic by swerving back and forth through traffic. Bicycles are a great deal safer with bike lanes because people have a mental set of staying within the white lines. But if traffic gets heavy many drivers will pull into the bike lane if they have enough room to move up. Most of the worst offenders don't have driver's licenses and are in stolen cars. They just passed a law in San Francisco yesterday that police aren't allowed to pull people over for a driving error in order to check on everything else. This is the radical left in action.

[Tom Kunich]

While I have no problem removing bicycles from high speed highways if there is any other route available, I absolutely despise bike paths which become dog walking paths and routes for people doing absolutely everything other than cycling.

I have noted the huge increase in cycling safety merely by marking of a real cycling lane and that is really all you need.

[AMuzi]

Same here.

Constitution be damned, Congress the Court and the
Administrative State walk all over the plain text whenever
expedient and with no recourse.

p.s. Vajiralongkorn, as Elizabeth II, is not an absolute
monarch. Mswati III is closer to absolute rule if you're
looking for a current example.

[Roger Merriman]

Paint doesn’t really work as folks can do drift over, on the section of my
commute that has barriers that is much more relaxing vs painted line where
I have to be much more aware of the traffic.

And sometimes it will arguably be worse for you, personally the segregated
bike lanes from Westminster to tower are slower, since you have lot more
cyclists and runners and well you name it, but you know what that’s fine,
it’s not for folks like myself who can pull away smarty from lights, zip
along fast and generally am confident in traffic.

Roger Merriman.

[Roger Merriman]

Wasn’t always so, ie the Dutch are like this due to political
will/activists work in the 70’s? when everyone was going motorway crazy and
there they took a different route.

Roger Merriman

[Lou Holtman]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:12:53 PM UTC+2, Roger Merriman wrote:
t in action.
> >
> Wasn’t always so, ie the Dutch are like this due to political
> will/activists work in the 70’s? when everyone was going motorway crazy and
> there they took a different route.
>
> Roger Merriman

In the 70's I went to high school (on bike of coarse) and traffic was terrible/chaotic especially in the inner cities. They kinked all the cars out of the cities centers from the mid 70's on and that was an HUGE improvements. Makes everything nicer. You cannot bike everywhere though. Some areas are restricted only for pedestrians. Since then bike routes and paths are always part of road design whether is new or redesigned and it is consistent. As a faster rider I'm not always that happy on busy times but overall it is good. We take it often for granted but people visiting us from abroad are always impressed.
Typical bike path on this kind of road (N-roads);

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.389171,6.1054998,3a,75y,311.21h,98.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1st4B697s7WcEwXDmNGCtqHA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dt4B697s7WcEwXDmNGCtqHA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D179.56662%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

Andrew, I know that after a year of Biden that it looks that way and you might be losing hope. But that isn't the way it is, The Congress, President and Courts are answerable to the people one way or another. I'm quite sure that you will see that in November. As well as shootings of ballot box stuffers.

[Tom Kunich]

They have been doing a lot of experimentation on bicycle lanes here and some of them look like your picture. I admit that this works very well but at the same time his a horrible expense inasmuch as the roads adjacent are covered in potholes that aren't being repaired.

[sms]

On 5/9/2022 10:12 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

>> I have noted the huge increase in cycling safety merely by marking of a
>> real cycling lane and that is really all you need.
>>
> Paint doesn’t really work as folks can do drift over, on the section of my
> commute that has barriers that is much more relaxing vs painted line where
> I have to be much more aware of the traffic.

It isn't just vehicles drifting over, it's also vehicles using the
bicycle lane as really long right-turn lane, or using it as a way to
pass vehicles on the right if the vehicle is waiting to turn left (both
based on countries where you drive on the right). Even more than either
of those, it's vehicles that illegally park or stop in the bike lane.
When the barriers are in place they can't do any of those things.

> And sometimes it will arguably be worse for you, personally the segregated
> bike lanes from Westminster to tower are slower, since you have lot more
> cyclists and runners and well you name it, but you know what that’s fine,
> it’s not for folks like myself who can pull away smarty from lights, zip
> along fast and generally am confident in traffic.

Yes, there have been complaints by more experienced, faster, cyclists
that a) it's difficult or impossible to pass slower cyclists, and b)
there are a lot more of those slower cyclists because of the
infrastructure. There are also complaints by vehicle drivers because
even though the vehicle lanes are not any narrower than they were when
the bike lanes were just painted lines, now they have to be careful to
not drift over because of the concrete barriers.

[sms]

The slow speed of cycle commuters in countries like The Netherlands no
doubt also contributes to the injury and fatality rate in crashes. "The
average speed of the Dutch on a pedal bicycle is 12.4 km/h and the speed
on an e-bike is 13 km/h" (7.7MPH and 8.1 MPH)
<https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-figures/>.

I recall the first time I was cycling in China in 1987. Massive numbers
of cyclists riding at a maddeningly slow speed, and no real way to pass
given the density. Just go with the flow, ring your bell, ride at the
same speed as everyone else, don't make any sudden stops (not really
possible since the rod brakes had little effect) and don't make
unexpected turns.

[AMuzi]

I did not single out one Administration, one Court or one
Congress. It's a pervasive (pernicious?) trend of long duration.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

But is that a staged picture? Just to "prove" people do not know how to wear helmets and put them on wrong? Its a new STI bike. He is sitting on the toptube, not moving/riding. And smiling goofily. Did he just put the helmet on backwards for fun? Personally, I've never ever even tried to put a helmet on backwards. Never saw the point in doing that. Kind of like putting your shoes on the wrong foot. Why even bother doing that. Unless you are intentionally trying to look stupid. A Halloween costume?

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

OK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_in_World_War_II
Thailand was invaded by Japan in WW2. The invaded Thailand then decided to sign an agreement, alliance, with Japan and the Axis powers. And declared war against UK and USA.

I guess there is an official difference between being colonized and being invaded and subjugated.

[John B.]

On Mon, 9 May 2022 11:21:17 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

But, from memory, you have laws in your country that govern traffic.
Why not just enforce them rather then all this fal-de-ral about
bicycle lanes?

If, for example, you hit a bicycle and kill the rider then that is
manslaughter and you go to jail. 2 - 4 years I believe in California.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

> But is that a staged picture? Just to "prove" people do not know how to wear helmets and put them on wrong? Its a new STI bike. He is sitting on the toptube, not moving/riding. And smiling goofily. Did he just put the helmet on backwards for fun? Personally, I've never ever even tried to put a helmet on backwards. Never saw the point in doing that. Kind of like putting your shoes on the wrong foot. Why even bother doing that. Unless you are intentionally trying to look stupid. A Halloween costume?
>

I don't know; first up in an image search.

But when we were in an urban area with daily bicycle rentals
the helmet rate was about 1/3 backwards. My staff learned to
never mention it. We'd get either an argument or an
horrified embarrassed customer, neither of which make the
day go any better.

[AMuzi]

> OK.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_in_World_War_II
> Thailand was invaded by Japan in WW2. The invaded Thailand then decided to sign an agreement, alliance, with Japan and the Axis powers. And declared war against UK and USA.
>
> I guess there is an official difference between being colonized and being invaded and subjugated.
>

The clever Thais arranged an 'alliance' and were not
colonized or even occupied.

The only other instance is Japan from forever until arguably
1945 but people do argue terms on that one. Which leaves
Thailand certainly.

[sms]

On 5/9/2022 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> But, from memory, you have laws in your country that govern traffic.
> Why not just enforce them rather then all this fal-de-ral about
> bicycle lanes?

In the U.S., what most places do is to design traffic calming measures
to reduce the need to increase expenditures on law-enforcement for
traffic control. Prior to the invention of traffic control signals, it
was necessary to hire police officers to direct traffic at intersections.

In the U.S., there is not enough money to continually pay salaries,
benefits, pensions, and overhead for the number of police that would be
necessary to do such law enforcement. It makes much more sense to put in
the necessary infrastructure.

[John B.]

Your comment simply demonstrates how little you know about what you
are talking about. Thailand has a democratic - elected by the
population - since 2019.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

On 5/9/2022 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> But when we were in an urban area with daily bicycle rentals the helmet
> rate was about 1/3 backwards. My staff learned to never mention it. We'd
> get either an argument or an horrified embarrassed customer, neither of
> which make the day go any better.

We usually rent bicycles whenever we are on vacation, whether in the
U.S. or in other countries. Helmets are just not an issue. Most bicycle
rental places offer them at no extra cost, though for a lot of people,
wearing a rental helmet is not something that they want to do.

When a hotel has rental bicycles they usually don’t offer helmets, but
in cases where helmets are not available, it’s no big deal, since the
risk of a fall where a helmet would be necessary is pretty small.

The last trip we took, back in September 2021, to New England, we took
helmets with us in our carry-on bags. They don’t take much space since
you can pack things inside them. There are also folding helmets. We used
our helmets three times in an eight day trip. We did an organized
touristy ride in Boston and there was one crash by someone on an eBike.

[John B.]

No Thailand was never colonized, largely due to the King being very
adroit in balancing relations with various countries and the fact that
Siam was perfectly located to be a buffer state between colonies
controlled by the British and the French.

He also freed the slaves, in 1874, said to be a result of observing
the damage done by the U.S.'s civil War.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

You simply insist of displaying your ignorance over and over and over
again. The King of Thailand has had no legal power what so ever since
the 1932 revolution, and, in fact the previous king, Rama 9,
frequently publicly stated this fact.

But yes, Thailand has had some 20 constitution, as of 2015, but, on
the other hand, has never had a civil war, in which the U.S.
slaughtered some 655,000 of their own citizens.

--
Cheers,

John B.