helmet

[AMuzi]

If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
enlighten me.

Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.

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

[datakoll]

Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine Nbar Bell and not worn.

I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets left on the rack ?

[datakoll]

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:12:03 PM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
> Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine Nbar Bell and not worn.
>
>
>
> I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets left on the rack ?

are riders owning helmets but not wearing helmets less likely or more likely to suffer head unjuries from cycle accidents than riders not.....whew...owning helmets ?

[AMuzi]

On 10/25/2012 6:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
> Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine Nbar Bell and not worn.
>
> I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets left on the rack ?
>

Which caused his broken femur or caused the
anaesthesiologist's error resulting in stroke?

[SMS]

On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death
> in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.

Actually a lot has changed since 1998.

If you recall the "driving helmet" argument, it's even lamer 14 years
later as vehicles now have a lot more safety features.

14 years ago, some people still believed that cycling rates fell if
helmets were either promoted or mandated, now we have solid evidence
that this is not the case.

We've also seen a number of new myths created since 1998. The continuous
myth creation is a necessary activity for those opposed to helmet usage
because as myths are debunked there is a need for new myths to replace them.

[F.K.]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:04:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
>beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
>enlighten me.
>
>Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
>else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.

Ah gee Andrew, SMS has provided irrefutable evidence, from the EU,
that bicycling is 11.5 times more dangerous then an auto. It appears
logical to eliminate this horrifying danger to mankind by immediately
outlawing these devices.

Write your congressman today!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:04:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
>beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
>enlighten me.

Well, since 1998, we now have
air bag helmets:
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/deniserestauri/2012/08/21/an-airbag-for-your-head-the-invisible-bike-helmet/>
wooden helmets:
<http://coyledesignandbuild.com>
carbon fiber bicycle helmets:
<http://bernunlimited.com/shop/bike/watts-146.html>
eco friendly wool helmets:
<http://www.treehugger.com/style/eco-friendly-concept-bike-helmet-for-lacoste-makes-you-look-less-like-a-dork.html>
folding bicycle helmets:
<http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/folding-bike-helmet-fits-in-your-pocket-or-purse.html>
cardboard bicycle helmets:
<http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/is-this-the-future-of-bicycle-helmets/>
bicycle helmet hats:
<http://www.coolhunting.com/tech/yakkay-bicycle.php>
retro bicycle helmets:
<http://www.bicycling.com/gearfinderproductdetail?gfid=12367>
<http://classiccycleus.com/home/?p=2469>
painted bicycle helmets (to ward off evil spirits)?
<http://www.monsterheadhelmet.daportfolio.com/gallery/542199>
and high fashion bicycle helmets:
<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bQ1FXDamiRM/T7P9aQgj1tI/AAAAAAAAG8E/pV8-WmFfYDY/s400/bike-helmet_bikini.jpg>
In my never humble opinion, there has been plenty of progress in
bicycle helmet design since 1998. Users have also found additional
uses for bicycle helmets, such as:
<http://slacktory.com/tag/aaron-swartz/>

>Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
>else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.

I don't think I've ever been able to do that. What I attempt to do is
leave a logical argument for future generations of Google searchers
that will mistakenly cite my authoritative hogwash as irrefutable
dogma.

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

[Joe Riel]

datakoll <data...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident.

Fatal?

--
Joe Riel

[David Scheidt]

AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

:On 10/25/2012 6:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
:> Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine Nbar Bell and not worn.
:>
:> I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets left on the rack ?
:>

:Which caused his broken femur or caused the
:anaesthesiologist's error resulting in stroke?

Wait, did he die? I mised that, if it's happened.



--
sig 95

[datakoll]

> >enlighten me.
>
>
>
> Well, since 1998, we

are not deaf to our doom !

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:59:37 -0700 (PDT), datakoll
<data...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>enlighten me.

One must suffer before enlightenment.

>> Well, since 1998, we
>
>are not deaf to our doom !

The speed of sound is much slower than the speed of electromagnetic
radiation and sub-atomic particles. It is unlikely that you'll hear
anything after you are barbequed, irradiated, or zapped as you will
already have met your doom. However, a bicycle helmet might be
useful, should you survive, to reduce damage when the monuments of
civilization fall on your head on Dec 21, 2012:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology>

[AMuzi]

He did not.

But many people would pause for a long thought when
pondering a choice of death by head injury or a major stroke.

[Sir Ridesalot]

if Jobst broke his right femur he's very lucky to not have blde to death at the accident scene. My niece in medical studies was told that the vast majority of broken right femurs cut the femoral artery and the victim bleeds to death extremely quickly.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:37:46 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> > If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death
>
> > in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.
>
>
>
> Actually a lot has changed since 1998.
>
>
>

> Snipped

> 14 years ago, some people still believed that cycling rates fell if
>
> helmets were either promoted or mandated, now we have solid evidence
>
> that this is not the case.

Snipped

Pray tell us; where in the world has bicycle usage remained the same or risen AFTER MANDATORY HELMET LAWS were introduced? Not Australia or New Zealand.

Studies showed that mandatory helmet laws DO cause cycling rates to DROP. Frank has posted data and links to those studies many times.

;<) Are you visiting from another galaxy? ;<)

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:37:46 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:

> On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> > If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death
>
> > in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.
>
>
>
> Actually a lot has changed since 1998.
>
>
>

Snipped

Yes, a lot has changed. One thing is that it is nowextremely difficult to find a hard-shell bicycling helmet in the average bicycle shop.

I've had a few intersting personal experiences with two soft-shell helmets.

One was when I wiped out and smacked the side of my helmet clad head against the pavement. No contusions or anything else and was able to immediately get up and ride without having to wash off any blood or patch a cut on the head.

Interestingly enough the other was when I dropped another helmet from the bicycle handlebar where the helmet had been hanging by its fastened chinstrap and 3" x 1" section of the lower lwft side of the helmet broke off upon impact. That was not even 3' and it was a straight drop with no forward momentum.

I wear a helmet primarily for the use of the helmet mounted mirror.

I wonder if the US Army Kevlar helmet would be a better choice? ;<)

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:11:38 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:04:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> >If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
>
> >beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
>
> >enlighten me.
>
>
>
> Well, since 1998, we now have
>

Snipped

>
> retro bicycle helmets:
>
> <http://www.bicycling.com/gearfinderproductdetail?gfid=12367>
>

Snipped

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

Got myself one of those a few years back. Fantastic ventilation and will hold the skull pieces together in a major crash. ;<) I hang it with my vintage Miele bicycle, jersey and shorts.

Cheers

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:18:29 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:11:38 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> retro bicycle helmets:
>> <http://www.bicycling.com/gearfinderproductdetail?gfid=12367>

<http://www.labicicletta.com/accessories/helmets/hairnet-head-cover.html>
Grrrr... only avaiable in 53 to 57cm. My inflated ego requires a 59cm
hat size.

>Got myself one of those a few years back. Fantastic ventilation

The problem with so much ventilation is that you can't listen to music
through the helmet:
<http://www.tunebug.com/tunebug-in-action/>
<http://justintimberlake.com/news/2010/badass_biker_need_tunes/>

>and will hold the skull pieces together in a major crash. ;<)

Yep. Saves time for the paramedics not needing to go searching the
roadway for all your skull fragments.

>I hang it with my vintage Miele bicycle, jersey and shorts.
>Cheers

Do your ride with the hair net "helmet"? (Please check only one):
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] 5th Ammendment (US)
[ ] Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec 11 (Canada)


--

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:12:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>I wear a helmet primarily for the use of the helmet mounted mirror.

Mirrors are so 1998. These daze, it's rear view cameras:
<http://www.cerevellum.com/hindsight.aspx>
<http://www.theowl360.com>
Please update your technology.

>I wonder if the US Army Kevlar helmet would be a better choice? ;<)

Specialized S-Works Prevail helmets have a "Kevlar-reinforced Inner
Matrix" (whatever that means):
<http://www.specialized.com/us/en/ftr/helmets/road-helmets/sworks-prevail>
Only $250 (ouch).

[Frank Krygowski]

On Oct 25, 7:05 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
> beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
> enlighten me.
>
> Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
> else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.

Since you ask, Andrew: Quite a few people have said, over the years,
that they used to be very pro-helmet, even pro-MHL, but that
discussions in these groups changed their mind.

I'm one of those who changed from pro-helmet to helmet skeptic
(although I was never pro-MHL). One person who now maintains a
massive online library of helmet research also had his mind changed
here. A third I know of now leads the anti-MHL fight in his European
country. And there are others.

In the cases I know of in detail, the key was getting people to
actually read and think about the data and the research. That's
certainly what changed my mind, and that's why I post so much data and
references.

And in fact, there has been more knowledge gained since 1998. For
example, the much greater dangers of rotational, rather than
translational, accelerations of the brain and skull were not commonly
recognized back then. (Helmets do nothing against rotational
acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.) The disastrous effect of
MHLs on bike share programs wasn't understood then. There are other
points as well.

Of course, there's no reason a person should read a helmet thread if
he or she is not interested.

- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> (Helmets do nothing against rotational
> acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)

Got data?

I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface
than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.

--
JS.

[Peter Gordon]

James <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote in news:k6d6tb$cv$1...@dont-email.me:

No studies, but in a fall off my bike the back of my helmet hit the road
and didn't slide but my polyester cycling jersey did. I don't think that
I have scrambled my brain but tore a trapezoid muscle and couldn't ride for
six weeks. Without a helmet, I would have sustained lacerations to my
scalp but nothing more serious.

[John B.]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:12:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

And when we see the stage racers tuck in and set off down the mountain
at 50 MPH they point and say "See there, He's wearing a helmet".

--
Cheers,
John B.

[Duane Hébert]

On 10/25/2012 08:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 6:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
>> Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine
>> Nbar Bell and not worn.
>>
>> I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets
>> left on the rack ?
>>
>
> Which caused his broken femur or caused the anaesthesiologist's error
> resulting in stroke?
>

Didn't know that he died. Sorry to hear that.

[datakoll]

last May

[thirty-six]

It is in opposition to what I know in my heart. I shall not bow to
the slave-drivers.

[SMS]

On 10/25/2012 8:04 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> Pray tell us; where in the world has bicycle usage remained the same or risen AFTER MANDATORY HELMET LAWS were introduced? Not Australia or New Zealand.

Australia and New Zealand.

> Studies showed that mandatory helmet laws DO cause cycling rates to DROP. Frank has posted data and links to those studies many times.

Surely you're not gullible enough to believe any of the "studies" to
which Frank posts links.

"The enactment of legislation promoting helmet use is associated with an
increase in helmet use and a decrease in head injuries. For example, in
Victoria, Australia, helmet use increased from 31% to 75%, and cycling
fatalities decreased by 48%, after the introduction of mandatory helmet
laws, despite an increase in cycling among adults."

(Cameron MH, Vulcan AP, Finch CF, et al. Mandatory bicycle helmet use
following a decade of voluntary promotion in Victoria,
Australia — an evaluation. Accid Anal Prev 1994;26:325-37.)

The key thing to remember is that you have to be extremely wary of
statistics specifically selected to try and prove something that is
actually untrue. In the case of the claims of reduced cycling levels,
there were several key flaws. First they searched for a time period
where they could find an atypical decrease. Second they chose sub-groups
of cyclists that fit their goal, and ignored sub-groups that did not fit
their goal. Third, they ignored all other factors that cause an increase
or decrease in cycling rates. All of this was intentional of course.

It is true that immediately following the implementation of a helmet law
there is often a dip in cycling levels, at least for children. After a
year or so, levels will return to the previous level. This is especially
true if helmet usage was not promoted through education for a long
period prior to the law taking effect, for reasons such as the lack of
wide availability of helmets at the retail level, especially outside of
just bicycle shops. For adults, as the Victoria study showed, there was
not even a decrease in the first year, adult bicycle usage went up 44%
in the first year after the helmet law was introduced, though the
increase cannot be attributed to the helmet law since cycling rates
increase and decrease for a variety of reasons (if I employed the same
junk science and statistics as Frank, I would jump up and down and
insist that the 44% increase was solely because of the helmet law!).

If you look at the web sites that promulgate the most misinformation
about helmets, i.e. <http://www.cyclehelmets.org> and look at the data
for Victoria <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html>, it's quite
amusing. They a) omit the fact that adult cycling levels went way up
after the helmet law, b) do not include the data showing that even for
children, cycling levels eventually returned to pre-helmet law levels,
and c) don't mention that even if there had not been an all ages helmet
law enacted, there would still have been a helmet law for children. That
site is junk science at its worst. Of course that's not surprising when
you look at the supporters, it's a collection of the worst offenders
when it comes to using junk science and statistics
<http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html>. It's not clear which of those
people are pushing the junk science and statistics and which of them
were simply gullible enough to believe it all.

[Jay Beattie]

On Oct 25, 9:17 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:18:29 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
>

> <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >On Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:11:38 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> retro bicycle helmets:
> >> <http://www.bicycling.com/gearfinderproductdetail?gfid=12367>
>
> <http://www.labicicletta.com/accessories/helmets/hairnet-head-cover.html>
> Grrrr... only avaiable in 53 to 57cm.  My inflated ego requires a 59cm
> hat size.
>
> >Got myself one of those a few years back. Fantastic ventilation
>
> The problem with so much ventilation is that you can't listen to music
> through the helmet:
> <http://www.tunebug.com/tunebug-in-action/>
> <http://justintimberlake.com/news/2010/badass_biker_need_tunes/>
>
> >and will hold the skull pieces together in a major crash. ;<)
>
> Yep.  Saves time for the paramedics not needing to go searching the
> roadway for all your skull fragments.

Not paramedics . . . coroners, although I worked with a guy (my boss)
who was the owner of a funeral home who, on one call, collected the
victim's brains and put them in to a hubcap. On Highway 17 -- your
neck of the woods, near Summit. I think he did it as a professional
courtesy. If people got splattered, we generally just went home . . .
except on HWY 17. The CHP was so worried that wrecks would cause more
wrecks (which they did) that the officers would declare people alive
even if they were in pieces. They would make us underpaid ambulance
drivers transport just to keep the road clear and to avoid the long
coroner's investigations. Otherwise, we were prohibited from hauling
dead people because it tied up EMS equipment. You would just go view
the carnage, declare something dead and go home . . . 10-55. 10-98,
10-19. Ah, the good old days.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Lou Holtman]

Op vrijdag 26 oktober 2012 01:05:01 UTC+2 schreef AMuzi het volgende:

> If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
>
> beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
>
> enlighten me.
>
>
>
> Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
>
> else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Andrew Muzi
>
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

It is the time of the year Andrew, but like you I asked the same questions. I don't care whether someone wears a helmet or not for whatever reason.

Lou

[Art Harris]

Duane Hébert wrote:
> Didn't know that he died. Sorry to hear that.
>

He didn't.

See:

http://rayhosler.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/alps-memories-as-fresh-as-newly-fallen-snow/

Art

[Duane Hébert]

On 10/26/2012 01:49 PM, Art Harris wrote:

Thanks. Yeah I got that further on in this thread.

[datakoll]

January February March April MAY June July Awgust....ry it its easy...

I hear JB went blind !

[datakoll]

Ah, the good old days.
>
>
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

that;s what I've always herd from the nursing squad
brains up
ACCIDENTS MORE OR LESS THE SAME
INCREASED HELMET SALES
LBS OWNERS HAVE A LARGER YACHT
BORED NEUROTICS FORM PARTY
RIDERS STAND AROUND WEARING GERMAN HELMETS AND TATTOOOOOS DEBATING WETHER TO BURN THE CAPITOL

[James]

On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:
> James <james.e...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01

> Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter.
> And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human
> reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get
> beaten by increases in effective size.
> It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the
> best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap.
>

As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any
bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous
racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars.

--
JS

[frkr...@gmail.com]

I damaged one helmet badly once, back when I wore one. I _guess_ you could call it a bicycling accident. We were starting a bike tour in Ireland. We were in Dublin's Phoenix Park, and I was trying to walk down a steep grassy hill, rolling my loaded touring bike and carrying my helmet under my arm. The grass was wet, and I slipped and sat down on my butt on the lawn. When I got up, the helmet I was carrying had two good sized pieces broken out of it. It had never left my grip.

People often claim "My helmet was broken. That's proof it saved my life!" But helmets really are very fragile.

-Frank Krygowski

[datakoll]

JB's obit

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=gw&q=Search%20for%20topics#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=jobst+brandt+obituary&oq=jobst+brandt+obituary&gs_l=hp.12...4189.39399.1.41883.70.40.16.10.16.9.318.6803.0j26j11j1.38.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.AwEbJ0etcu4&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=cfe7a5b78bb5c473&bpcl=35466521&biw=1152&bih=635

[Dan O]

On Oct 25, 4:05 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
> beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
> enlighten me.
>

I'm sorry for (contributing to) trashing the place. I'll try to wrap
it up tonight or this weekend and then nevermore (would be a real load
off anyway).

> Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
> else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.
>

I'm not even trying to change anybody's opinion - just looking for a
tangible shred of respect buried underneath one of them.

[Dan O]

Ever wonder if they do the counting anywhere near the same places
they've done enforcement? ;-)

Sure MHL is a discouragement and it absolutely makes sense that some
of the more marginally committed people would stop riding, but the
best they can do is count what they *think* is a representative
sample, and as Frank is so fond of tellign us (when it suits his
agenda), confounding factors abound.

[Dan O]

On Oct 25, 8:12 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:37:46 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
> > On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> > > If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death
>
> > > in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.
>
> > Actually a lot has changed since 1998.
>
> Snipped
>
> Yes, a lot has changed. One thing is that it is nowextremely difficult to find a hard-shell bicycling helmet in the average bicycle shop.
>

I'm still using my '86 Vetta until I can afford a new POC.

<snip>

[SMS]

On 10/26/2012 8:26 PM, Dan O wrote:

<snip>

> Sure MHL is a discouragement and it absolutely makes sense that some
> of the more marginally committed people would stop riding, but the
> best they can do is count what they *think* is a representative
> sample, and as Frank is so fond of tellign us (when it suits his
> agenda), confounding factors abound.

As I pointed out, the fraudulent cyclehelmets.org site simply omitted
the fact that adult cycling rates increased by 44% following the MHL in
Victoria, and only talked about a decrease in youth cycling rates. Of
course neither of those changes could be attributed to the MHL. Adults
didn't start riding more because they thought that now that they were
forced to wear a helmet that they were magnitudes safer, and minors
didn't start cycling less because they were so upset over the law.

[Wes Groleau]

On 10-25-2012 21:11, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> folding bicycle helmets:
> <http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/folding-bike-helmet-fits-in-your-pocket-or-purse.html>

Doubles as a party decoration.

--
Wes Groleau

A pessimist says the glass is half empty.
An optimist says the glass is half full.
An engineer says somebody made the glass
twice as big as it needed to be.

[SMS]

On 10/26/2012 8:17 PM, Dan O wrote:

> I'm not even trying to change anybody's opinion - just looking for a
> tangible shred of respect buried underneath one of them.

It is not necessary to respect those that lie to advance their own agenda.

The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those
against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically
faulty, reasons for their opposition.

As a commenter on treehugger.com wrote four years ago, "Anyone quoting
cyclehelmets.org as a reputable site has to get their own brain examined."

You have to wonder how anyone could fall for the "science" on that site.
The funniest part has got to be when they get started on the Netherlands
and correlate the lack of helmet usage to relatively few injuries and
fatalities without ever taking into account the cycling infrastructure
in the Netherlands.

One thing's for sure, when you see the name of any of their patrons or
editorial board members on a post about helmets, get your shovel ready
because you're about to be hit with a s%^#load of junk science and junk
statistics. It's like deciding who and what to vote for and against when
you don't know the candidates or you're unfamiliar with a ballot
proposition (for those of us in states that have those). You look at who
is supporting or endorsing a particular candidate or issue.

[Wes Groleau]

On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote:
> The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those
> against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically
> faulty, reasons for their opposition.

When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing,
taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious.

--
Wes Groleau

He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
— Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

[Dan O]

On Oct 26, 10:19 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote:
>
> > The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those
> > against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically
> > faulty, reasons for their opposition.
>
> When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing,
> taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious.
>

Refreshing logic.

[John B.]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:16:02 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>James <james.e...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:56:27

>+1100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> James <james.e...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01
>>> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> (Helmets do nothing against rotational
>>>>> acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)
>>>>
>>>> Got data?
>>>>
>>>> I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface
>>>> than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.
>>>
>>> Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter.
>>> And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human
>>> reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get
>>> beaten by increases in effective size.
>>> It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the
>>> best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap.
>>>
>>
>>As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any
>>bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous
>>racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars.
>

>Nobody said you were guaranteed to bash your foam, just that the
>larger size increases the likelihood.

Maybe if they went out and got a job doing something that required a
"hard hat" they'd understand that you do bump your bead/hat more with
the enlarged head/hat.

So common it is not even a matter for discussion in those circles :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.

[datakoll]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

an arguement at the core !

BTW, hemets are mandatory in Australia ? WTH cawsed that spasm ?

itslike flouride and water

[SMS]

On 10/26/2012 10:19 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote:
>> The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those
>> against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically
>> faulty, reasons for their opposition.
>
> When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing,
> taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious.

If the entity putting forth the fallacious argument actually had any
evidence to support their position then they would use it. Therefore the
use of a fallacious argument is pretty good indication that the opposite
of what they are arguing for is true.

[Wes Groleau]

Unless they don't realize the fallacies. If a fallacy were evidence
that the other side is right, then I'd have to conclude in most
arguments that both sides are wrong and the other side is right.

--
Wes Groleau

I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with
the release of MS-DOS.
— Larry DeLuca

[Frank Krygowski]

On Oct 26, 11:35 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> As I pointed out, the fraudulent cyclehelmets.org site simply omitted
> the fact that adult cycling rates increased by 44% following the MHL in
> Victoria, and only talked about a decrease in youth cycling rates. Of
> course neither of those changes could be attributed to the MHL. Adults
> didn't start riding more because they thought that now that they were
> forced to wear a helmet that they were magnitudes safer, and minors
> didn't start cycling less because they were so upset over the law.

So where can we find your evidence that the above nonsense is true?
(44% _increase_ in cycling after telling people it's so dangerous that
it's now illegal to ride without a foam hat???) And why do you
suppose that astonishing fact has somehow slipped by so many cycling
advocacy organizations?

It could be that you're inventing the +44% entirely on your own. More
likely, you've found one bit of data that's actually inapplicable
(such as, a 20 year increase that's smaller than the population
increase and doesn't factor in the original sharp drop in cycling),
i.e. one bit of data that contradicts the dozens of data sources that
everyone else has deemed much more reliable.

But given your habit of citing nothing, just slinging anonymous
numbers, you should understand why people here discount your claims.

More concisely (for the TLDR crowd): Put up or shut up, Stephen.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Oct 27, 7:42 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> BTW, hemets are mandatory in Australia ? WTH cawsed that spasm ?

Here's some history to skim:
http://crag.asn.au/?p=2046

More interesting to me is the influence of Bell Sports and the rabidly-
pro-MHL Thompson & Rivara team in the U.S. I think this bears more
careful reading:

http://crag.asn.au/?p=1121

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Oct 27, 9:56 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> If the entity putting forth the fallacious argument actually had any
> evidence to support their position then they would use it.

:-) Says the poster so notorious for alluding to phantom or
irrelevant numbers, but almost never providing proper citations or
links!

SMS, you're a treasure!

- Frank Krygowski

[LF]

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:05:01 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
>
> beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
>
> enlighten me.
>

>Andrew. This topic is out of season. The dead of winter is the traditional period for helmet wars, although minor skirmishes can emerge without warning. The best piece of helmet research I know of was done at MIT, and I found it extremely convincing - On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study. http://tinyurl.com/35skqmm
Best Regards,
Larry

[DirtRoadie]

Frank Krygowski - the master of strawmen and straw arguments!
You are hilarious! Perpetually ignorant, but hilarious!
DR

[Jay Beattie]

On Oct 26, 11:16 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:56:27

> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:

> >> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01

> Nobody said you were guaranteed to bash your foam, just that the
> larger size increases the likelihood.

Sure, maybe on a tree branch, but when you're pile-driving in to the
pavement, 25mm of foam doesn't increase the likelihood of hitting the
pavement, unless you are capable of Matrix-like stop-motion falling.
You're gonna hit the pavement. With other falls, the size and mass
really makes no significant difference. See e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6YWws_K-o
You're thinking about Bell Bikers and other salad bowl helmets of yore
and not modern racing helmets. More massive helmets, like ski helmets,
do increase neck strain, IMO, and with any headgear, there is a
potential for entanglement -- thus recommendations against using them
on jungle gyms, etc. But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
riding in for the next six months.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Oct 27, 2:50 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>  But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
> prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
> scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
> frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
> riding in for the next six months.

Do you think there's a way we could get helmet promoters to restrict
their efforts to those who will be riding competitively, or in reduced-
traction environments?

That would be a great improvement over the current "NEVER ride your
bike without a helmet" schtick.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Oct 27, 12:18 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2:50 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
> > prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
> > scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
> > frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
> > riding in for the next six months.
>
> Do you think there's a way we could get helmet promoters to restrict
> their efforts to those who will be riding competitively, or in reduced-
> traction environments?
>

... or at least *emphasize* that sort of thing.

> That would be a great improvement over the current "NEVER ride your
> bike without a helmet" schtick.
>

Yep.

Hey, you want to help make things better? I hear Ohio is *the*
pivotal battleground for election of the next POTUS. I know we can
count on you to help make it happen. (Pull it off and you truly
*will* be our hero.)

[datakoll]

> I suspect your collar bone is at greater risk than your brain.
>
> That will be because of the instinctive use of the arms to prevent
>
> head impact.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

we did falling in HS gym with Sabatini

valuable valuable...

I find hair under a rolled up nylon ski balclava protects

the saw about entanglements in construction ARE EXPLETIVE DELETED CONTRUCTION not cycling

off course cycling rates fall....NO ONE ALL HAVE ON HAND HELMETS...seriously there's a lotta ninnyism herein.

[Jay Beattie]

On Oct 27, 2:50 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012

> Or a truck mirror.

>
> >                              but when you're pile-driving in to the
> >pavement, 25mm of foam doesn't increase the likelihood of hitting the
> >pavement, unless you are capable of Matrix-like stop-motion falling.
> >You're gonna hit the pavement.
>

> Nothing so fancy, just knowing how to fall, which was something most
> kids learned at a basic level pretty early until the last couple of
> decades.
> You can protect your head pretty effectively by falling properly -
> think of a sport that involves falling, like Judo - most of the
> participants spend the majority of their time in the early stages
> simply learning how to fall without injury.
> No Matrix cinematography tricks required.

When I fall, I generally have enough time in the air to check my
Facebook page and send a few text messages . . . then I plan my re-
entry. Let's see, half-gainer, right full twisting layout and
voila . . . on to my feet crouched down in a ninja pose! Thank you
Wachowski brothers (sisters)!

The reality is that I'm usually riding through a wet corner and whap!
I'm down (and now in my old and decrepit state, I creep through wet
turns). Most crashes on the road don't give you time to think about
anything. Some race crashes have long wind-ups, and mountain biking
wipe-outs can happen at slow speeds, but a lot of stuff on the road
just happens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmx9J1jwAo You can be
Mary Lou Retton, but you're goin' down -- and the deal is that you can
"miss" your head with the initial fall and then slide in to a curb or
one of those stupid dangerous metal guard rails.

>
> >                                With other falls, the size and mass

> >really makes no significant difference.  See e.g.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6YWws_K-o

> >You're thinking about Bell Bikers and other salad bowl helmets of yore
> >and not modern racing helmets. More massive helmets, like ski helmets,
> >do increase neck strain, IMO, and with any headgear, there is a
> >potential for entanglement -- thus recommendations against using them
> >on jungle gyms, etc.  But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
> >prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
> >scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
> >frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
> >riding in for the next six months.
>
> >-- Jay Beattie.
>

> I suspect your collar bone is at greater risk than your brain.
> That will be because of the instinctive use of the arms to prevent
> head impact.

Yes, shoulder injury is definitely more prevalent than brain injury --
at least the type of brain injury that is preventable with a helmet,
i.e. skull fracture and focal brain injury. My three closest riding
companions had the following injuries this year: (1) fractured AC
joint with distal acromion resection, (2) fractured wrist (radius) and
(3) AC separation with deep hip bruising and facial injury. (1) and
(3) also had head impacts as well, but I don't think any LOC. (2) and
(3) were mountain bike injuries, one in at DH nationals. (1) got hit
by a car. (1) was pretty healed up by the beginning of summer, so we
put in a lot of miles in an effort to get in shape to beat (3). (2)
was always kicking my butt, so I enjoyed riding with him in the
recovery phase and kicking his butt for once -- actually, I knew I
could kick his butt but didn't because I can't face the agonizing pay
back when he gets in to shape.

-- Jay Beattie.

[datakoll]

a widespread problem relative to my unanswered question atop this thread...no feedback here

there's one>

http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=en&biw=1152&bih=635&tbm=isch&tbnid=z8yRIBtZJX9hyM:&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich&docid=0Zm5Ga6b2EUfXM&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/Wilhelm_Reich_in_his_mid-twenties.JPG/180px-Wilhelm_Reich_in_his_mid-twenties.JPG&w=180&h=222&ei=aI6MUIX0CejL0AHixIGgDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=132&vpy=120&dur=281&hovh=177&hovw=144&tx=97&ty=94&sig=115374576402817132137&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=107&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0,i:96

[Dan O]

So you know, then, that if you're wearing a (good) helmet you can let
it take some relatively harmless knocks and scrapes that you'd
naturally and instinctively rather not take to the head in the process
of going with the flow as inertia dissipates, without resorting to
unharmonious contortionist tactics.

(That's one of my favorite responses to "helmets prevent broken legs"
ridicule. It's not so absurd.)

But crashes are, by nature, unpredictable events. That's what the
helmet is all about. You don't *need* it for riding, and as you say,
you don't even *need* it when you crash. (You might be glad you had
it on, though; but you won't really know, will you. Hence our
conundrum about whether or not they work, and lots of mocking people
who said theirs did. I can tell you that I can't ever recall
regretting that I was wearing one.)

>
> When I fall, I generally have enough time in the air to check my
> Facebook page and send a few text messages . . . then I plan my re-
> entry. Let's see, half-gainer, right full twisting layout and
> voila . . . on to my feet crouched down in a ninja pose! Thank you
> Wachowski brothers (sisters)!
>
> The reality is that I'm usually riding through a wet corner and whap!
> I'm down (and now in my old and decrepit state, I creep through wet
> turns).

+1 (both things)

> Most crashes on the road don't give you time to think about
> anything. Some race crashes have long wind-ups, and mountain biking
> wipe-outs can happen at slow speeds, but a lot of stuff on the road

> just happens.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmx9J1jwAo You can be

> Mary Lou Retton, but you're goin' down -- and the deal is that you can
> "miss" your head with the initial fall and then slide in to a curb or
> one of those stupid dangerous metal guard rails.
>
>
> > > With other falls, the size and mass
> > >really makes no significant difference. See e.g.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6YWws_K-o
> > >You're thinking about Bell Bikers and other salad bowl helmets of yore
> > >and not modern racing helmets. More massive helmets, like ski helmets,
> > >do increase neck strain, IMO, and with any headgear, there is a
> > >potential for entanglement -- thus recommendations against using them
> > >on jungle gyms, etc. But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
> > >prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
> > >scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
> > >frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
> > >riding in for the next six months.
>

>

> > I suspect your collar bone is at greater risk than your brain.
> > That will be because of the instinctive use of the arms to prevent
> > head impact.
>
> Yes, shoulder injury is definitely more prevalent than brain injury --
> at least the type of brain injury that is preventable with a helmet,
> i.e. skull fracture and focal brain injury. My three closest riding
> companions had the following injuries this year: (1) fractured AC
> joint with distal acromion resection, (2) fractured wrist (radius) and
> (3) AC separation with deep hip bruising and facial injury. (1) and
> (3) also had head impacts as well, but I don't think any LOC. (2) and
> (3) were mountain bike injuries, one in at DH nationals. (1) got hit
> by a car. (1) was pretty healed up by the beginning of summer, so we
> put in a lot of miles in an effort to get in shape to beat (3). (2)
> was always kicking my butt, so I enjoyed riding with him in the
> recovery phase and kicking his butt for once -- actually, I knew I
> could kick his butt but didn't because I can't face the agonizing pay
> back when he gets in to shape.
>

Collarbone is the only bone I've ever broken. I was on the last lap
of a long motorcycle race, making a balls-to-the-wall last-ditch hail-
mary attempt to win on the outside of the right-hand turn. Highsided,
upended and came down on my left shoulder. The thing is, I guess I
was still attached to the (motor)bike, and it pile-drove it's mass
through me and my shoulder on its way to earth. It really hurt.
(Glad I was wearing a helmet.)

[datakoll]

It really hurt.
>
> (Glad I was wearing a helmet.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

yeah I got that with a heavy FM receiver right thru muh loweer lip.

but fo you, wearing a helmet will not reduce accidents infacto may increase accidents.

?

[Dan O]

Hmm... it's possible, but I don't think so. I'm aware of it up there
(use the brim to shield my eyes from headlights and the sun, hear the
rain on it and see it dripping off the brim, other reasons), but never
think of it as protective - just there. I certainly never think of it
as magically or super protective. I absolutely do *not* count it to
prevent head injury; I just know that's its purpose, and believe it
has the potential to do so. I've crashed enough to know that I can't
control the parameters to keep them within the capabilities of the
helmet.

I routinely wear my helmet for commuting, because it's a long trip,
making the overhead (ha, ha) of dealing with it small; exposure is
going to be extensive; and I use the brim to shield my eyes from
glare. I usually don't wear it close to home bopping around on my
bouncy, flouncy whjeelie bike (except for that one time I was setting
out to attempt some Evel Kneivel thing).

I tend to ride with more abandon on the whjeelie bike. Sure I get
downright radical to break the monotony of commuting, and *maybe* I'd
consciously tone some of it down a bit if I was bareheaded, but that's
only part of a total stance of due caution. I do *not* count on a
helmet to prevent any injury, but it would be stupid to think that it
can't.

The helmet may actually be part of a total precautionary stance that
*does* reduce chances of a crash. Sounds contrary to conventional
wisdom, I know; but I've reflected deeply on this, and I honestly
think I have a pretty healthy grip on affairs. The lapses are
probably more likely when I'm carefree, but by the same token I ride
hardest when my blood is really pumping and I'm hauling ass (standard
commuting). I won't discount the risk compensation phenomenon, but
nor do I ever feel the least bit like, "What the hell, I've got a
helmet on" (except maybe riding through light, low hanging foliage -
tactile engagement of which is kind of a thrill).

[Joy Beeson]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:40:46 -0400, Wes Groleau
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> . . . I'd have to conclude in most

> arguments that both sides are wrong and the other side is right.

I've noticed that. Most really-emotional arguments are along the
lines of "worship the chipmunk totem!"/"worship the ground-squirrel
totem!" when it's obvious to me that the totem we really need is a
full-grown bison.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

[Dan O]

On Oct 27, 10:11 pm, Joy Beeson <jbee...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:40:46 -0400, Wes Groleau
>

> <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > . . . I'd have to conclude in most
> > arguments that both sides are wrong and the other side is right.
>
> I've noticed that. Most really-emotional arguments are along the
> lines of "worship the chipmunk totem!"/"worship the ground-squirrel
> totem!" when it's obvious to me that the totem we really need is a
> full-grown bison.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book

(The Ralph Bakshi animated video is excellent.)

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:24:37 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> On Oct 27, 8:08 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > but fo you, wearing a helmet will not reduce accidents infacto may increase accidents.
> > ?
>
>
>
> Hmm... it's possible, but I don't think so. I'm aware of it up there
>
> (use the brim to shield my eyes from headlights and the sun, hear the
>
> rain on it and see it dripping off the brim, other reasons), but never
>
> think of it as protective - just there. I certainly never think of it
>
> as magically or super protective. I absolutely do *not* count it to
>
> prevent head injury; I just know that's its purpose, and believe it
>
> has the potential to do so. I've crashed enough to know that I can't
>
> control the parameters to keep them within the capabilities of the
>
> helmet.

Yet in your post just previous, you said:

"So you know, then, that if you're wearing a (good) helmet you can let
it take some relatively harmless knocks and scrapes that you'd
naturally and instinctively rather not take to the head in the process
of going with the flow as inertia dissipates, without resorting to
unharmonious contortionist tactics.

"(That's one of my favorite responses to "helmets prevent broken legs"
ridicule. It's not so absurd.) "

To me, those two ideas seem completely incompatible. Either you know it's there, or you don't. Either it affects your behavior, or it doesn't.

In any case: It sounds like you haven't actually read the information on the "helmets [apparently] preventing broken legs." That odd conclusion came from a highly qualified PhD statistician examining Thompson & Rivara's data set from their most (in)famous 1989 paper, the one that claimed 85% effectiveness. The statistician, Dr. Dorothy Robinson, noted the total lack of control for self-selection, and noted that the same kids whom the T&R team claimed were protected by their helmets (so few head injuries when they were taken to ER) also had so few _other_ injuries when taken to ER. Using precisely the same (faulty) math techniques that T&R used, she "proved" that the helmets also prevented about 75% of broken legs.

She was using the broken legs as a humorous way of showing how wrong T&R were. It was a way to show that T&R's experiment was out of control, generating ludicrous results. But that's not stopped helmeteers from trumpeting its never-corroborated results to the high heavens.

For more details (although this doesn't specifically mention broken legs) try
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html. Warning, there's some math involved.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

Oh, the data: I haven't recorded it, but I definitely crash more
often - unhelmeted - on (er... off) the whjeelie bike - in much fewer
hours and much fewer miles of riding (hard to say which gets more
trips - depends on the weather, I guess). Bouncy, flouncy - fun, fun,
fun...

[Dan O]

On Oct 27, 10:29 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:24:37 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 8:08 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > but fo you, wearing a helmet will not reduce accidents infacto may increase accidents.
> > > ?
>
> > Hmm... it's possible, but I don't think so. I'm aware of it up there
>
> > (use the brim to shield my eyes from headlights and the sun, hear the
>
> > rain on it and see it dripping off the brim, other reasons), but never
>
> > think of it as protective - just there. I certainly never think of it
>
> > as magically or super protective. I absolutely do *not* count it to
>
> > prevent head injury; I just know that's its purpose, and believe it
>
> > has the potential to do so. I've crashed enough to know that I can't
>
> > control the parameters to keep them within the capabilities of the
>
> > helmet.
>
> Yet in your post just previous, you said:
>
> "So you know, then, that if you're wearing a (good) helmet you can let
> it take some relatively harmless knocks and scrapes that you'd
> naturally and instinctively rather not take to the head in the process
> of going with the flow as inertia dissipates, without resorting to
> unharmonious contortionist tactics.
>
> "(That's one of my favorite responses to "helmets prevent broken legs"
> ridicule. It's not so absurd.) "
>
> To me, those two ideas seem completely incompatible. Either you know it's there, or you don't. Either it affects your behavior, or it doesn't.
>

Says the guy who crashed once.

You know it's there JRA. The brim can block oncoming headlights, rain
pelts the shell and drips off, etc. But do you think, "Ah, the helmet
is there. My head is protected." No. (At least, I don't.)

And you know it's there as you tumble down the road or track or
whatever, and you don't knwo exactly what's goign to happen one
instant to the next, but you try to go with the flow and ride it out
until the inertia is dissipated and you come to rest. With a helmet
on you feel the knocks and scrapes along the way, and you are glad
it's there. That doesn't mean it affected your behavior before, or
caused you to bite it.

*Without* the helmet, the instinctive behavior to protect your head
from the same relatively harmless knocks and scrapes (and worse) that
are no problem whatsoever with a (good) helmet (and you would likely
survive anyway) - the instininctive behavior has you focused more on
protecting your head. I have crashed a jillion times, and it's simply
more awkward (and somewhat more hazardous) without a (good) helmet.

> In any case: It sounds like you haven't actually read the information on the "helmets [apparently] preventing broken legs." That odd conclusion came from a highly qualified PhD statistician examining Thompson & Rivara's data set from their most (in)famous 1989 paper, the one that claimed 85% effectiveness. The statistician, Dr. Dorothy Robinson, noted the total lack of control for self-selection, and noted that the same kids whom the T&R team claimed were protected by their helmets (so few head injuries when they were taken to ER) also had so few _other_ injuries when taken to ER. Using precisely the same (faulty) math techniques that T&R used, she "proved" that the helmets also prevented about 75% of broken legs.
>

Yeah, yeah, yeah - whatever. So what. How does that change my semi-
tongue-in-cheek theory?

> She was using the broken legs as a humorous...

... smarmy, mocking...

> ... way of showing how wrong T&R were. It was a way to show that T&R's experiment was out of control, generating ludicrous results. But that's not stopped helmeteers from trumpeting its never-corroborated results to the high heavens.
>

Independent critical thinking is in woefully short supply everywhere.

> For more details (although this doesn't specifically mention broken legs) tryhttp://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html.
>

Look, I'm about done here, but I *might* give my analysis (later...
SNL is starting). I can and do look at data and think critically
about its relevence.

> Warning, there's some math involved.

Smarmy fuckhead.

[Dan O]

"Commentary" at the top of the page... that's as far as I got. No way
I'm wasting my time and giving myslef heartburn reading "commentary"
form that wacko propaganda site.

Good night.

<snip>

[Dan O]

Actually (took a glance and scroll before closing the browser window),
I think I've read it before, and considered it with interest, but
it's obviously got an agenda.

[Ralph Barone]

Art Harris <n2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Duane Hébert wrote:
>> Didn't know that he died. Sorry to hear that.
>>
>
>
> He didn't.
>
> See:
>
> http://rayhosler.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/alps-memories-as-fresh-as-newly-fallen-snow/
>
> Art

Well, I certainly hope somebody has informed Mr. Jobst of this...

[datakoll]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:24:37 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:

> On Oct 27, 8:08 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It really hurt.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > (Glad I was wearing a helmet.)

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

on first consideration before piling up a stats history, I haven't read the Aussie bit yet, so this is contemporary USA civil theory, wearing a helmet allows pre learning for people prone to 4-5 trial learning ie most of the pop

on getting the law word, the discussion, thinking abt buying, choosing, and fianlly hanging it up in the closet soitsnot damaged.

the process well before riding is cycle education ceptin Dano off course.

and easterners can do nthis with guardrails visavee western roads with no guardrails or snowbanked forest roads visavee tree lined forest roads, walking a rope withoutor wotha net, drugging your bear before poking it...the arguements for helmet safety and results waaaaaaaayyyy before the accident are limitless.

[Frank Krygowski]

Dan, you yell "smarmy" and "mock" and "fuck*" anytime anyone shows any
more use of brainpower than Saturday Night Live. You have a real
problem. Your anti-intellectualism is out of control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

- Frank Krygowski

[Bruce Dickinson]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 08:58:44 -0700, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> Smarmy fuckhead.
>
> Dan, you yell "smarmy" and "mock" and "fuck*" anytime anyone shows any
> more use of brainpower than Saturday Night Live. You have a real
> problem. Your anti-intellectualism is out of control.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

I'll be honest.. Frank, it was sounding great. But.. I could've used a
little more cowbell. So.. let's take it again.. and, Frank..

Really explore the posting space this time.
--
Bruce Dickinson

[Dan O]

"... allegations of anti-intellectualism can constitute... an appeal
to ridicule that attempts to discredit an opponent rather than
specifically addressing his or her arguments."

[Dan O]

(the above _from the page you linked_, which continues:

"The Nazi party's populist rhetoric featured anti-intellectual rants
as a common motif, including Adolf Hitler's..."

And so, with this indirect invocation of Godwin, you've surprisingly
wrapped things up quite fully, thank you, and now I finally do bid
you... Good Night.

[AMuzi]

On 10/28/2012 1:40 AM, Dan O wrote:

> Smarmy fuckhead.
>

Sounds like a drink special, something with Slivovitz and
Jaegermeister maybe.

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

[Wes Groleau]

On 10-28-2012 02:40, Dan O wrote:
> Independent critical thinking is in woefully short supply everywhere.

http://tinyurl.com/9bvso2x

--
Wes Groleau

ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI

[Sepp Ruf]

AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/28/2012 1:40 AM, Dan O wrote:
>
>> Smarmy fuckhead.
>>
>
> Sounds like a drink special, something with Slivovitz and Jaegermeister
> maybe.

Did Dan inhale this through his nose?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9637665/Teenager-who-lost-stomach-after-drinking-liquid-nitrogen-cocktail-speaks-of-her-ordeal.html

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/26/2012 7:02 AM, � wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 08:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 10/25/2012 6:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
>>> Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine
>>> Nbar Bell and not worn.
>>>
>>> I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets
>>> left on the rack ?
>>>
>>
>> Which caused his broken femur or caused the anaesthesiologist's error
>> resulting in stroke?

>>
>
> Didn't know that he died. Sorry to hear that.

Composer Jobst Brandt died on January 22, 1570.

It has been more than 442 years people - get over it.

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

[James]

Ah, the decomposing composer. There's less of him every year. You can
still hear Jobst Brandt, but Jobst Brandt can not hear you.

(That is the Jobst Brandt that died all those years ago.)

--
JS.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/25/2012 7:37 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death
>> in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.
>
> Actually a lot has changed since 1998.
> [...]

Scharf no longer posting FUD is not one of them.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/26/2012 3:57 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> considered Thu, 25 Oct 2012
> 20:04:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

>
>> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:37:46 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>>> If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death
>>>
>>>> in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually a lot has changed since 1998.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> Snipped
>>> 14 years ago, some people still believed that cycling rates fell if
>>>
>>> helmets were either promoted or mandated, now we have solid evidence
>>>
>>> that this is not the case.
>> Snipped
>>
>> Pray tell us; where in the world has bicycle usage remained the same or risen AFTER MANDATORY HELMET LAWS were introduced? Not Australia or New Zealand.
>>
>> Studies showed that mandatory helmet laws DO cause cycling rates to DROP. Frank has posted data and links to those studies many times.
>>
>> ;<) Are you visiting from another galaxy? ;<)
>>
> Scharf comes from a strange planet, where truth and fiction are
> reversed.
>
I believe Scharf is delusional.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/27/2012 11:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 26, 11:35�pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As I pointed out, the fraudulent cyclehelmets.org site simply omitted
>> the fact that adult cycling rates increased by 44% following the MHL in
>> Victoria, and only talked about a decrease in youth cycling rates. Of
>> course neither of those changes could be attributed to the MHL. Adults
>> didn't start riding more because they thought that now that they were
>> forced to wear a helmet that they were magnitudes safer, and minors
>> didn't start cycling less because they were so upset over the law.
>
> So where can we find your evidence that the above nonsense is true?
> (44% _increase_ in cycling after telling people it's so dangerous that
> it's now illegal to ride without a foam hat???) And why do you
> suppose that astonishing fact has somehow slipped by so many cycling
> advocacy organizations?
>
> It could be that you're inventing the +44% entirely on your own. More
> likely, you've found one bit of data that's actually inapplicable
> (such as, a 20 year increase that's smaller than the population
> increase and doesn't factor in the original sharp drop in cycling),
> i.e. one bit of data that contradicts the dozens of data sources that
> everyone else has deemed much more reliable.
>
> But given your habit of citing nothing, just slinging anonymous
> numbers, you should understand why people here discount your claims.
>
> More concisely (for the TLDR crowd): Put up or shut up, Stephen.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
5 out of 3 (sic) doctors paid for their opinion recommend wearing foam
bicycle hats.

[Wes Groleau]

Is there an echo in here?

--
Wes Groleau

“Would the prodigal have gone home if
the elder brother was running the farm?”
— James Jordan

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/26/2012 10:26 PM, Dan O wrote:

> On Oct 25, 8:12 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:37:46 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>>>> If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death
>>
>>>> in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.
>>
>>> Actually a lot has changed since 1998.
>>
>> Snipped
>>

>> Yes, a lot has changed. One thing is that it is nowextremely difficult to find a hard-shell bicycling helmet in the average bicycle shop.
>>
>
> I'm still using my '86 Vetta until I can afford a new POC.
>
> <snip>
>
The MIPS system in mine [1] feels like it might actually work.

[1] <http://www.pocsports.com/en/product/1391/trabec-race-mips>

[James]

I think you'll find there are more people riding bike here in Australia
now than before the MHL was introduced.

--
JS

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/25/2012 11:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Grrrr... only avaiable in 53 to 57cm. My inflated ego requires a 59cm
> hat size.

Ha ha. I have a 60-cm head.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/26/2012 12:06 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> And in fact, there has been more knowledge gained since 1998. For
> example, the much greater dangers of rotational, rather than
> translational, accelerations of the brain and skull were not commonly
> recognized back then. (Helmets do nothing against rotational
> acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)

Hmmm...

<http://www.pocsports.com/en/content/view/new-technologies#MIPS>

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/27/2012 2:39 PM, Dan O wrote:
> [...]
> Hey, you want to help make things better? I hear Ohio is *the*
> pivotal battleground for election of the next POTUS. I know we can
> count on you to help make it happen. (Pull it off and you truly
> *will* be our hero.)
>

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the
votes decide everything." - Ioseb Besarionis dze Dzhugashvili

[James]

On 7/11/2012 3:04 PM, Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
> On 10/27/2012 2:39 PM, Dan O wrote:
>> [...]
>> Hey, you want to help make things better? I hear Ohio is *the*
>> pivotal battleground for election of the next POTUS. I know we can
>> count on you to help make it happen. (Pull it off and you truly
>> *will* be our hero.)
>>
>
> "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the
> votes decide everything." - Ioseb Besarionis dze Dzhugashvili
>

What did he say about those who rig the voting machines?

--
JS.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/27/2012 11:24 PM, Dan O wrote:
> The helmet may actually be part of a total precautionary stance that
> *does* reduce chances of a crash. Sounds contrary to conventional
> wisdom, I know; but I've reflected deeply on this, and I honestly
> think I have a pretty healthy grip on affairs. The lapses are
> probably more likely when I'm carefree, but by the same token I ride
> hardest when my blood is really pumping and I'm hauling ass (standard
> commuting).

Your standard commute involves pulling a donkey with the bike?

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 10/27/2012 1:20 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:07:31
> -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 10/26/2012 8:17 PM, Dan O wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not even trying to change anybody's opinion - just looking for a
>>> tangible shred of respect buried underneath one of them.
>>
>> It is not necessary to respect those that lie to advance their own agenda.
>>
> Fuck off then.
>
> <offensive lying libelous crap snipped>
>
Or insane delusional rantings (of Scharf, that is).

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

The Eight Families are tired of their Middle East plaything, it seems.

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, October 26, 2012 6:26:04 AM UTC+1, James wrote:

> On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > (Helmets do nothing against rotational
>
> > acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)
>
>
>

> Got data?
>
>
>
> I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface
>
> than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.
>
>
>
> --
>
> JS.

You're wicked, James. A serious cyclist isn't supposed to have a sense of humour.

Andre "The Grim" Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, October 26, 2012 12:05:01 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
>
> beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
>
> enlighten me.
>
>
>

> Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
>
> else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.

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

Good heavens, how old-fashioned, actually trying to persuade people of something.

But there is new and better data, which, interestingly, the usual wankers claim not to have read. The question arises, are people like Sherman and Krygowski really so thick and badly educated as their refusal to consider the New York study suggests, or are they stupid-smart, not reading those particular facts because they know there is no answer, that those numbers make a killer argument for an MHL in the United States. It doesn't take a lot of brains to see that, actually, I suspect anyone who can get an engineering degree, even from a third-rate American college, can handle the simple statistics required.

Of course, it may just be that I've burned them too often, and that eventually even such thickos learn to stay away from fire. That's a depressing thought, because the necessary corollary is that they're dumb enough truly to believe the that anti-helmet zealotry they spout so religiously.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, October 26, 2012 12:12:03 AM UTC+1, datakoll wrote:
>
> Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident.

You really have no class, Daniels. You're scum.

Andre Jute