Updates to Bicycle Coffee Systems at "http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com"
SMS
A few new products have come on the market recently. One really nice
product for commuting and leisurely rides is the Bell "Cruisin joe to
go" cup holder which is sold at Target for $5.99 (I have not seen them
for sale on-line anywhere). It's a more secure design in terms of
mounting than the other bicycle cup holders I've seen on the market from
Soma Fabrications or Electra (besides being much cheaper). I've bought
12 of them so far because any time a friend, colleague, or relative sees
it on one of my bikes they want one.
Thermos-Nissan has come out with four new double-wall, vacuum insulated,
stainless steel tumblers and mugs (sold in many places, though the
cheapest place I saw them was at Target). These are good companions for
the Bell cup holder.
"http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com" or simply Google "bicycle coffee" and
click on "I'm Feeling Lucky".
Chalo
>
> One really nice
> product for commuting and leisurely rides is the Bell "Cruisin joe to
> go" cup holder which is sold at Target for $5.99 (I have not seen them
> for sale on-line anywhere).
Bell is pro big box store, but anti-cyclist. They actively lobby in
favor of restricting cyclists' rights all over the world, in the
interest of a short-term boost in sales of their products. If other
manufacturers offer comparable products, I suggest looking
elsewhere.
Bell also sells merchandise under the Vistalite, Easton, Giro,
Blackburn, and CoPilot brands. All are to be avoided by cyclists who
value their own rights.
If Bell Sports should come to dominate the sector of bicycle borne
coffee-carrying vessels, be alert for proposed legislation in your
area requiring all bicyclists to carry coffee under penalty of law.
Chalo
JC Dill
> SMS wrote:
>> One really nice
>> product for commuting and leisurely rides is the Bell "Cruisin joe to
>> go" cup holder which is sold at Target for $5.99 (I have not seen them
>> for sale on-line anywhere).
>
> Bell is pro big box store, but anti-cyclist. They actively lobby in
> favor of restricting cyclists' rights all over the world,
Cite?
jc
SMS
LOL, there is no cite, it's the ranting of a lunatic AHZ.
landotter
I'm with Chalo. I hate FUD and related hysteria. Bicycling should be
seen as a normal extension of human movin' around--not as an
unapproachable X-games activity. The only statistic that their
lobbying has positively affected is their own bottom line.
landotter
Might want to get that telephone pole out of your eye and come to
terms with your own religious hysteria. You consistently lie about
bicycles to serve your own fetishistic agenda.
Bicycling is safe and shouldn't be terribly complicated. You're not
helping with your own FUD.
SMS
That's great, because apparently Bell has hired someone in product
management that agrees with you. In the past couple of years they have
brought to market some extremely useful accessories that make that
extension more practical. The "Cruisin joe to go" cup holder is the most
recent, but they've also come out with the best water bottle cage that
adjusts to carry even very large bottles, a bottle cage that mounts on
the handlebars (essentially combining the Minoura handlebar mount with a
cage at a good price), two very good bells, pants legs straps, and a
line of panniers, seat bags, and handlebar bags.
Even when there were similar items available, you usually had to order
them on-line because no bicycle shop or mass market retailer would carry
them because they weren't marketing to "practical" cyclists.
The fact that you are unable to accept the enormous body of evidence
that proves that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities, especially in
children is not the problem of Bell. True, they promote helmet laws for
kids, but they are not alone in terms of corporations that promote or
oppose safety laws for their own financial advantage.
That Bell boycott site is hilarious. All the completely discredited lies
of the AHZs collected in one place, and it's by the "Committee to
Boycott Bell Helmets" which apparently is one person in Berkeley who is
echoing all of Guy Chapman's misinformation. Must be a tea party person.
BTW, they aren't even saying to boycott Bell, just Bell helmets. Alas,
Bell has also apparently hired some good product designers for their
bicycle helmet division as they have come up with the best adjustment
system for helmets and are using it even on some of their lower cost lines.
Remember to boycott Giro, Blackburn, and Easton as well. Geez, what a
bunch of lunatics.
Bill Sornson
> lunatic AHZ
Redundant.
<eg>
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>
>> lunatic AHZ
>
> Redundant.
I though they wouldn't be posting here any more because they are too
busy attending tea party rallies and researching Obama's birth
certificate. Every time I read one of the lies of the tea party people I
think of the AHZs because it's clear that either a) they are so dumb
that they actually believe the propaganda, or b) they are intentionally
lying to further their own perverted agenda. Neither is a flattering
image of them.
Bill Sornson
Dude, you're way off the mark.
A) Most AHZs are leftists. That's not to say that most left-wingers are
AHZs, however; they're not.
B) Tea Party people are mostly conservatives, libertarians and
independents -- the very type of people who /question and/or reject/
propaganda.
HTH(BKIW), BS
SMS
> Dude, you're way off the mark.
>
> A) Most AHZs are leftists.
Why do you think that? Not that I know the politics of the AHZs, but
their lack of logic and critical thinking skills would seem to indicate
that they'd be of the tea party type. Like the tea party people, they
create these incredible fictional stories to support their position.
It's amazing how they can take an innocuous post about bicycling and
coffee and turn it into a helmet debate.
Chalo
>
> B) Tea Party people are mostly conservatives, libertarians and
> independents -- the very type of people who /question and/or reject/
> propaganda.
Oh yeah?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/4468908929/in/set-72157623594187379/
Might as well have a look at the whole set of photos, to see how
awesome "conservatives, libertarians and independents" can be.
Chalo
carl...@comcast.net
Dear LD,
I love the testimonial:
"Chrissy -- Age 4 Helmet Saved Her Life"
The school bus in the background is a nice touch. They lack seat
belts.
The statistics in the ad are intriguing.
First, they claim one child killed every day, plus 50 more suffering
permanent brain injuries, all from bicycle accidents.
Then they claim that helmets will prevent one death every day and one
brain injury every 4 minutes. (The 85% protection rate must come from
the ridiculous Thompson-Rivara study.)
Hmmm . . . one brain injury every 4 minutes is 15 injuries per hour,
24 hours per day.
24 x 15 = 360
That's 360 brain injuries per day, not the 50 claimed at the start.
So helmets will prevent an extra 310 brain injuries per day that never
happened in the first place?
That's even better than their ability to reduce leg injuries by ~70%
in the Rivara-Thompson study.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Bill Sornson
> On 02/04/10 9:20 AM, Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Dude, you're way off the mark.
>>
>> A) Most AHZs are leftists.
>
> Why do you think that? Not that I know the politics of the AHZs, but
> their lack of logic and critical thinking skills would seem to
> indicate
Think of the roaster of AHZs posting here. Frank, Chalo, whoever the hell
else I probably have plonked -- all lean well to the left politically. Can
you name even one conservative (American politics) who's a vehement or even
mild anti-liddite?
> that they'd be of the tea party type. Like the tea party
> people, they create these incredible fictional stories to support
> their position.
There you go again. Conservatives, libertarians and independents generally
believe in personal responsibility, limited government intrustion in lives,
common sense over hysteria, etc. The kind of people who /choose/ to wear
helmets because they can limit and lessen injury, but do NOT advocate making
them mandatory. They may even opt to not wear a lid, but only because it's
a personal decision and not some radical "cause".
> It's amazing how they can take an innocuous post about bicycling and
> coffee and turn it into a helmet debate.
With that I'll agree.
Bill "you're just way off base with the tea party rants" S.
landotter
> A) Most AHZs are leftists.
lie.
>
> B) Tea Party people are mostly conservatives, libertarians and
> independents -- the very type of people who /question and/or reject/
> propaganda.
lie.
Right wing authoritarians are experts at meme-ery and repetition. Why
do you think that every single screaming white person from the right
has to frame the health care debate within the parameters of virtual
S&M "throat shoving"? It's either infectious propagandistic language--
or every single screaming angry right wing white person has the exact
same analogy ready to deploy because of personal experience with the
subject.
Jay Beattie
It's all part of the evil plot to enslave our heads! I am also
boycotting Pearl Izumi for their misleading glove advertisements --
and those nut-slot saddles, too. And those mucus people in the
Mucinex commercials -- they don't exist! It's all a lie. There is no
party in my chest! -- Jay Beattie.
SMS
> It's all part of the evil plot to enslave our heads! I am also
> boycotting Pearl Izumi for their misleading glove advertisements --
> and those nut-slot saddles, too. And those mucus people in the
> Mucinex commercials -- they don't exist! It's all a lie. There is no
> party in my chest!
There is a party, but you aren't invited. Now go look for the
Ty-Dee-Bowl man in your toilet.
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
mug (which really is leakproof, and more easily cleaned than the OXO)
and a X Cage holder on the stem of my Bike Friday New World Tourist.
I may have to change this when I get the new foldable stem for the BF.
73, doug
SMS
> Hm, you've missed both parts of my current system- a Contigo Autoseal
> mug (which really is leakproof, and more easily cleaned than the OXO)
> and a X Cage holder on the stem of my Bike Friday New World Tourist.
> I may have to change this when I get the new foldable stem for the BF.
>
> 73, doug
Actually I'm using a Contigo Auto Seal mug too. Got it at Costco. It
fits into the Bell cup holder quite nicely. But geez, it's a pain to
clean. I have some tiny brushes that I use to get down into the crevices.
I've added it to the site.
The new Thermos-Nissan mugs I mention on the site let you disassemble
the lid for cleaning which is a big plus.
What is the X Cage? I'll add it if it makes sense.
Don Freeman
Don Freeman
> There is no
> party in my chest! -- Jay Beattie.
You're no Pamela Anderson, that's why.
--
-Don
SMS
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>> There is no
>> party in my chest! -- Jay Beattie.
>
> You're no Pamela Anderson, that's why.
Have you ever met Jay?
Jay Beattie
I admit it. I am no Pamela Anderson -- but then neither is Pamela
Anderson. -- Jay Beattie.
landotter
Who *is* working her avatar these days?
Bill Sornson
How many busloads of SEIU goons does it take to paint fake signs (when
they're not too busy throwing eggs or beating up wheelchair-bound black
guys, that is)?
HTH!
Bill Sornson
This about helmets or air bags?
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4bb5c59b$0$1666$742e...@news.sonic.net...
I would make the case that Bell Sports and Specialized have done more to
scare people away from cycling than the worst motorists. Bell spent a lot of
$$$ lobbying for mandatory helmet laws all across the country, and they made
a fortune in return. Look, I won't ride around the block without a helmet,
but cycling without a helmet is a whole lot better for you (and the
community) than not cycling at all, and mandatory helmets laws get passed by
waging a campaign of fear, convincing people that cycyling is a terribly
dangerous activity.
Specialized did what they could to get people to believe that cycling with
the wrong seat causes impotence, and went so far as to get coverage on
national TV, magazines, everywhere they could... so they could sell *their*
saddle which, amazingly, would protect your sex life. No mention, ever, of
how much improper fit on the bike is the major issue here, not saddles. Or
that a healthy male who happens to ride is a whole lot better off, in terms
of certain capabilities, than a couch potato.
The cycling industry is full of examples of eating its young, and Bell is
undeniably one of the early and frequent offenders.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Tom Kunich
news:M6Gdne78WpRLCSvW...@earthlink.com...
>
> The cycling industry is full of examples of eating its young, and Bell is
> undeniably one of the early and frequent offenders.
Mike, you're right on the target. Luckily most bicyclists can't read......
AMuzi
"AHZ" may be as mythical as a flying pig.
Among those who are skeptical of the hype and doubt the
utility and effectiveness of 'certified safe' cycling
helmets, go ahead and try to link Frank & me, politically.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Bill Sornson
Are you anti-helmet, Andy? Do you advise customers to not wear them? (And
thus not sell them?)
Bill "hmmm..." S.
SMS
<snip>
> I would make the case that Bell Sports and Specialized have done more to
> scare people away from cycling than the worst motorists. Bell spent a
> lot of $$$ lobbying for mandatory helmet laws all across the country,
> and they made a fortune in return. Look, I won't ride around the block
> without a helmet, but cycling without a helmet is a whole lot better for
> you (and the community) than not cycling at all, and mandatory helmets
> laws get passed by waging a campaign of fear, convincing people that
> cycyling is a terribly dangerous activity.
Yet cycling is more popular than ever. So you're saying it would be even
_more_ popular without all the child helmet laws (yes, there are a few
scattered adult helmet laws in the U.S., but not many).
Actually, the reality is that the child helmet laws give parents enough
of a false sense of security that helmets will protect their kids that
they are willing to let them ride their bicycles at all, often badly.
While I'd rather have the kids ride properly without helmets, than
dangerously with them, that's not a realistic goal.
I can't speak for the whole country of course, but at the schools in my
area, it's overflow parking only for kids bicycling to school. It
exceeded the expectations of the school by a huge margin and they rushed
to construct a second bicycle parking area to accommodate the large
numbers. I was surprised too, especially with the loads the kids carry
to school, including often carrying large musical instruments on
specially constructed rear racks. Maybe it helps that there are almost
no school buses in the districts. The instances of over-protective
parents insisting on chauffeuring their child from their garage to the
drop-off circle was far less of a problem than anyone expected.
So you think that Bell is trying to discourage cycling so they can sell
fewer accessories?! They sell a lot more than just helmets. Of course
you are well aware that even in countries with all-ages helmet laws no
one has _ever_ shown a resulting decline in cycling that resulted from
such laws. Cycling rates go up and down to be sure, for various reasons,
but helmet laws have never been shown to be a cause.
> Specialized did what they could to get people to believe that cycling
> with the wrong seat causes impotence, and went so far as to get coverage
> on national TV, magazines, everywhere they could... so they could sell
> *their* saddle which, amazingly, would protect your sex life. No
> mention, ever, of how much improper fit on the bike is the major issue
> here, not saddles. Or that a healthy male who happens to ride is a whole
> lot better off, in terms of certain capabilities, than a couch potato.
It was not just Specialized that did the research on bicycle seats and
impotence, and certainly not Specialized that sold all the new style seats.
> The cycling industry is full of examples of eating its young, and Bell
> is undeniably one of the early and frequent offenders.
Somehow I think that much of your position comes from the fact that Bell
costs you a lot of lost business in terms of extremely profitable
accessory and helmet sales. When someone goes to Costco or Target or
Wal-Mart or OSH and buys a $20 Bell or Schwinn helmet, that's $40-100 in
revenue that some bike shop somewhere is not getting. Ironically, many
of the most well designed Bell accessories have no equivalent at all
available at an LBS, so clearly there is little market among "serious
cyclists" for such products.
landotter
Why would Andrew advise folks not to wear them? The reasonable
position to take is to let the customer do what they want. Sell them a
helmet if they want one--and dial it in to work as well as it can, or
if they want a nice wool cap--sell them that.
I lead noob rides and tell them that it's none of my business what
they wear on their heads--but it is my business that they ride well--
as I do have to share the road with them.
AMuzi
As a skeptic, I remain unconvinced that they are magic or
indispensable or necessary for riding a bicycle. Mike's post
was I think clear and much in keeping with my own views.
Are they completely useless in every case? Probably not.
Will you absolutely survive a car-induced head trauma with
one? Maybe, maybe not. You want to ride with a helmet? Fine
with me. You want to legislate helmet use on public roads?
I'll fight that. Scare parents and children and imply
cycling is dangerous? Despicable. The data shows otherwise.
p.s. I sell orange flippy flags and plenty of other things
found neither on me nor on my bicycle.
AMuzi
Nice position and one with which I heartily agree
Bill Sornson
But you're not a /zealot/ about these things. People like Crank 'n Flailor
{tm} are.
Bill "and thus not 'as mythical as a flying pig' HTH" S.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> "AHZ" may be as mythical as a flying pig.
>
> Among those who are skeptical of the hype and doubt the
> utility and effectiveness of 'certified safe' cycling
> helmets, go ahead and try to link Frank & me, politically.
Regarding politics, Andrew - you and I certainly disagree on certain
points. But I'm sure you and I agree strongly on others.
As I've noted before, my liberal friends seem to think I'm very
conservative, and my conservative friends seem to think I'm way too
liberal. My view is, if a person's buying into one political platform
lock, stock & barrel, he's not using his brain.
On helmets, my present views are different from what my views once
were. I believed the hype about their effectiveness, and believed
that the risk was great enough that wearing one was a good idea. I
now know both of those are false. The change happened when I began
looking at actual evidence, actual data.
Libraries and an open mind can do wonders for learning, if a person's
only willing to work.
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
> I don't know what you've been smoking, but every helmet law ever
> enacted has resulted in a decline in cycling.
Nope. It doesn't matter how many times people the AHZ's say it, it
doesn't make it true. It's just one of their "big lies."
> No point in stocking stuff that doesn't sell, or not stocking stuff
> that does, so this indicates the more serious cyclists (who use LBSs
> rather than Wal-Mart) must be avoiding Bell.
Ah, the "serious cyclists" again.
> If you look at the way helmet scare stories have depressed cycling, it
> seems fairly obvious that every helmet sale is about a fifth of a bike
> sale disappearing.
No evidence of that at all, zilch, nada.
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> Bell has also apparently hired some good product designers for their
> bicycle helmet division as they have come up with the best adjustment
> system for helmets and are using it even on some of their lower cost lines.
What sort of chin strap buckle?
I'm fed up well past the gills with my old Avenir helmet, but I
haven't seen anything in the store that doesn't feature the same
unreliable, hard-to-adjust, wattle-pinching "parachute buckle" that's
on the Avenir. I can't believe that anything that flaky has ever been
anywhere near a parachute!
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
landotter
You said it. My main beef is with fundamentalism of any stripe. Don't
care if you wear a lid or a cap, Campy or Shimano or Sram, or if you
worship Wootan on Thursdays--but be open to evidence.
We had a fun clashing of egos on a local google group when a friend of
mine posted about high fructose corn syrup, (HFCS) and how he believes
that it might be the culprit in America's obesity problem. Everyone
was behind him and ready to believe anything about this product--it
has to be bad, it's got bad politics and Conagra behind it. I was the
sole person posting to say--hey wait and look at evidence instead of
getting a mob high. I've worked professionally as a baker, and know
why it's a really compelling product to use industrially (it's ability
to help moisture retention is remarkable) and enough basic chemistry
to see that it's pretty close to table sugar or honey from a digestion
POV. What I think enraged the mob was my simple declaration that I'd
change my opinion in a second to their faction--if only there was
evidence.
I'm loyal to my family, friends, and dogs, but not so much to ideas.
If I'm dead wrong about something--give me the gift of the truth, but
with evidence to back it up.
Tom Kunich
news:hp6a7f$i5i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> As a skeptic, I remain unconvinced that they are magic or indispensable or
> necessary for riding a bicycle. Mike's post was I think clear and much in
> keeping with my own views.
I've had two head injuries in the past 4 months. In both cases I went over
the bars and in neither case did the helmet do any good at all since I
landed on my face. Luckily the first time I must have put my hands up since
I had a very large cut on my face but no other problems. The second one the
carbon fork broke off and my memory has been completely screwed up so that I
remember nothing at all about it and it has messed up a lot of memories as
well.
I am unlikely to ride anything other than steel forks or the very best
carbon forks forever after.
AMuzi
We are at the same place on helmets. And libraries!
AMuzi
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:36:08 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bell has also apparently hired some good product designers for their
>> bicycle helmet division as they have come up with the best adjustment
>> system for helmets and are using it even on some of their lower cost lines.
>
> What sort of chin strap buckle?
>
> I'm fed up well past the gills with my old Avenir helmet, but I
> haven't seen anything in the store that doesn't feature the same
> unreliable, hard-to-adjust, wattle-pinching "parachute buckle" that's
> on the Avenir. I can't believe that anything that flaky has ever been
> anywhere near a parachute!
>
> Joy Beeson
Uvex for one does that better.
Chalo
>
> Somehow I think that much of your position comes from the fact that Bell
> costs you a lot of lost business in terms of extremely profitable
> accessory and helmet sales. When someone goes to Costco or Target or
> Wal-Mart or OSH and buys a $20 Bell or Schwinn helmet, that's $40-100 in
> revenue that some bike shop somewhere is not getting.
At my bike shop, helmets start at $30, and they are not nearly as
stupid-looking as what passes for a helmet in most of the cycling
world (more like skiing, climbing, or skydiving helmets). They're
still stupid-looking and unnecessary, and they give their users a
false sense of security. But they have hard shells like real helmets,
which counts for something at least. I sell helmets to willing
buyers, with the caveat that one must have reasonable expectations
about how much protection they can possibly offer.
Nothing you can say about Bell Sports can make it seem ethical for a
private company to lobby for laws requiring people to buy what the
company sells. That's crossing the line between marketing and
extortion. And the only ethical response to that from a consumer
standpoint is to refuse to buy from that company.
Chalo
Peter Rathmann
...
> Of course
> you are well aware that even in countries with all-ages helmet laws no
> one has _ever_ shown a resulting decline in cycling that resulted from
> such laws. Cycling rates go up and down to be sure, for various reasons,
> but helmet laws have never been shown to be a cause.
You made the claim only 3 weeks ago that there was no evidence that
MHLs cause declines in cycling and I gave this response at that time:
"There certainly is evidence for a decline in cycling following
imposition of MHLs. One example of a decline in cycling numbers is
provided in the Mar. '05 issue of Health Promotion Journal of Aus.:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/hpja_2005_1_robinson.pdf
which cites several places where such declines were noted, incl.
Melbourne where counts were taken at 64 places at the same time of
year and day in the year before the MHL and the two years following
it. Declines were about 30%." Robinson also reported that telephone
surveys were taken after the MHL was passed and people who reported
cycling less were asked for the reason and the most common reason
cited was the MHL.
Seems that you're going to continue claiming a lack of sufficient
evidence no matter what studies are done.
Bill Sornson
> Nothing you can say about Bell Sports can make it seem ethical for a
> private company to lobby for laws requiring people to buy what the
> company sells. That's crossing the line between marketing and
> extortion. And the only ethical response to that from a consumer
> standpoint is to refuse to buy from that company.
Replace "private company" with "Federal Government" and we're golden.
LOL
Chalo
With SMS and Sornson alike, if plainly available evidence contradicts
their convictions, then it must be false.
Chalo
Bill Sornson
LOL Projection, thy name is Shallow.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> On 02/04/10 6:07 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I would make the case that Bell Sports and Specialized have done more to
>> scare people away from cycling than the worst motorists. Bell spent a
>> lot of $$$ lobbying for mandatory helmet laws all across the country,
>> and they made a fortune in return. Look, I won't ride around the block
>> without a helmet, but cycling without a helmet is a whole lot better for
>> you (and the community) than not cycling at all, and mandatory helmets
>> laws get passed by waging a campaign of fear, convincing people that
>> cycyling is a terribly dangerous activity.
>
> Yet cycling is more popular than ever. So you're saying it would be even
> _more_ popular without all the child helmet laws (yes, there are a few
> scattered adult helmet laws in the U.S., but not many).
Ohmygosh yes! Have you considered why cycling is so much less popular with
10-17 year old girls than boys? Appearance is a big thing for young girls,
and wearing helmets and messing up hair just doesn't go over well. And for
boys, it's not as big a factor because they largely know they can ignore the
existing laws, which in itself is a very bad thing, since we're teaching
kids that laws can be selectively ignored. If you're going to have a helmet
law for kids, it should be enforced strictly.
> Actually, the reality is that the child helmet laws give parents enough of
> a false sense of security that helmets will protect their kids that they
> are willing to let them ride their bicycles at all, often badly. While I'd
> rather have the kids ride properly without helmets, than dangerously with
> them, that's not a realistic goal.
I must be older than you; my parents had no awareness whatsoever that
bicycling was an unsafe activity until helmets came along (and by then it
was too late; I was hooked for good).
> I can't speak for the whole country of course, but at the schools in my
> area, it's overflow parking only for kids bicycling to school. It exceeded
> the expectations of the school by a huge margin and they rushed to
> construct a second bicycle parking area to accommodate the large numbers.
> I was surprised too, especially with the loads the kids carry to school,
> including often carrying large musical instruments on specially
> constructed rear racks. Maybe it helps that there are almost no school
> buses in the districts. The instances of over-protective parents insisting
> on chauffeuring their child from their garage to the drop-off circle was
> far less of a problem than anyone expected.
What's happening at a few local schools is incredible. But it is,
unfortunately, not widespread. In Redwood City, it's total gridlock when
people are driving their kids to school or picking them up. Woodside High
School has maybe 20 kids who ride (contrast that with Gunn with can have
over 600). Wish someone could figure it all out and get more schools on
board. Safe Routes to Schools will, for the firsr time, be expanded to High
Schools, but in principle only. No funding, because it wouldn't get
passed... the car lobby remains very protective of its high school
constituents, whom it sees as the future. Probably smart thinking on their
part.
> So you think that Bell is trying to discourage cycling so they can sell
> fewer accessories?! They sell a lot more than just helmets. Of course you
> are well aware that even in countries with all-ages helmet laws no one has
> _ever_ shown a resulting decline in cycling that resulted from such laws.
> Cycling rates go up and down to be sure, for various reasons, but helmet
> laws have never been shown to be a cause.
Bell makes a lot more $$$ selling helmets than anything else. And they're
not trying to discourage cycling; they're trying to mold it into something
they profit extensively from. That, by itself, isn't much different from how
most businesses operate.
>> Specialized did what they could to get people to believe that cycling
>> with the wrong seat causes impotence, and went so far as to get coverage
>> on national TV, magazines, everywhere they could... so they could sell
>> *their* saddle which, amazingly, would protect your sex life. No
>> mention, ever, of how much improper fit on the bike is the major issue
>> here, not saddles. Or that a healthy male who happens to ride is a whole
>> lot better off, in terms of certain capabilities, than a couch potato.
>
> It was not just Specialized that did the research on bicycle seats and
> impotence, and certainly not Specialized that sold all the new style
> seats.
Read the facts, the "rest of the story" as it were, here-
http://bicyclesnyc.com/articles/read-the-facts-about-bicycle-seats-and-your-love-life-pg158.htm
Specialized paraded the rantings of Dr. Irwin Goldstein, most-famous for the
following remark-
"Men should never ride bicycles. Riding should be banned and outlawed. It's
the most irrational form of exercise I could ever bring to discussion."
Specialized could *sell* product. Expensive bike seats. They can't sell
common-sense fit advice, which has kept the vast majority cyclists safe from
the need for Viagra or surgical cures for impotence. Nobody else pushed this
agenda even 10% as much as Specialized did. It was, and remains, a
successful scheme to scare the heck out of people to sell product. A page
out of Dr.Goldstein's book, who makes a good deal of money as a "consultant"
for companies marketing ED drugs.
>> The cycling industry is full of examples of eating its young, and Bell
>> is undeniably one of the early and frequent offenders.
>
> Somehow I think that much of your position comes from the fact that Bell
> costs you a lot of lost business in terms of extremely profitable
> accessory and helmet sales. When someone goes to Costco or Target or
> Wal-Mart or OSH and buys a $20 Bell or Schwinn helmet, that's $40-100 in
> revenue that some bike shop somewhere is not getting. Ironically, many of
> the most well designed Bell accessories have no equivalent at all
> available at an LBS, so clearly there is little market among "serious
> cyclists" for such products.
What are these "well designed" accessories sold at Costco or Target or *Mart
that don't make their way into the local bike shops?
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Nothing you can say about Bell Sports can make it seem ethical for a
> private company to lobby for laws requiring people to buy what the
> company sells. That's crossing the line between marketing and
> extortion. And the only ethical response to that from a consumer
> standpoint is to refuse to buy from that company.
>
Bloody Socialist! :)
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
SMS
> Nothing you can say about Bell Sports can make it seem ethical for a
> private company to lobby for laws requiring people to buy what the
> company sells.
I agree. When private companies lobby congress for laws, or for funding
for projects that benefit them by increasing the market for their
products, that's unethical. It's especially bad when a company tries to
get around campaign donation limits by "encouraging" its employees and
dealers to make their own "independent" donations.
I will boycott products and services from any company that lobbies
congress for laws that benefit them, or that donates money (or
"encourages their employees and dealers to donate money) to campaigns of
politicians that they believe will pass laws that help them increase sales.
I already found two reports in a Bicycle Retailer regarding this
abhorrent behavior by companies selling bicycle accessories.
"http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/3828.html"
"http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/3244.html"
I'm so mad that right after this I'm going to get out my Milwaukee
Sawzall and destroy my Trek tandem (if the Sawzall will cut through its
steel frame), and mail the pieces back to Trek with a nastygram.
Or maybe I'll take a reality pill first.
SMS
"Trek president John Burke wanted to say thanks to the industry’s
leading advocate in Congress, Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar. So he
gathered 400 industry members—most of them Trek retailers from across
the country—and asked them to pony up $100 a head for Oberstar’s campaign."
SMS
OMG, take _anything_ from "http://www.cycle-helmets.com" with thousands
of grains of salt. It's a site thrown together by pathological liars
that delight in taking things out of context in a desperate attempt to
mislead those that lack critical thinking skills.
The "count" in Australia is a prime example. They admittedly left out
large numbers of cyclists that passed by certain locations. They did not
account for differences in weather. And it was a study done only one
year after the law went into effect.
Do you want the reality? Probably not, but here it is:
"In the first year of Australian law, a count in a few cities like Perth
(west coast) showed that the number of cyclists had decreased by about
30%. This number gradually returned to its previous level."
So not only was the count that showed a 30% decline intentionally
manipulated to show a greater decline than actually occurred, the level
"returned" to the previous level later. If anything, the "return to the
previous level" is technically incorrect because the level never
declined 30% to begin with.
You have to learn to look critically at references from organizations
that have a specific agenda.
AMuzi
Very funny.
Get back to us when you stop buying food, gasoline, milk,
telephone service, computers, clothing...
Frank Krygowski
I don't know about the "one fifth," but certainly helmet promotion and
mandates dissuade people from riding. Check out figure 1 in
http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm
Scharf refuses to read anything on this topic, apparently so he can
maintain his fiction that there is "no evidence." What he really
means is, no evidence that _he_ has seen.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Helmets_maxi-FAQ
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Nothing you can say about Bell Sports can make it seem ethical for a
> private company to lobby for laws requiring people to buy what the
> company sells. That's crossing the line between marketing and
> extortion.
Perfectly stated.
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
<snip>
> "I will boycott products and services from any company that lobbies
> congress for laws that benefit them, "
>
> Very funny.
>
> Get back to us when you stop buying food, gasoline, milk, telephone
> service, computers, clothing...
Sarcasm doesn't come across well on Usenet. If you follow those links,
they're examples of bicycle manufacturers, especially Trek, lobbying
congress and making campaign donations to candidates that will pass laws
that will likely result in increased sales of bicycles and accessories.
Chalo
Is Trek pushing for laws that would require cyclists to ride Treks (or
lugged carbon framed bikes, or some other proxy for Trek bikes) or
else face punitive fines? Perhaps you know something I don't in this
regard.
Chalo
damyth
This is rich.
We may be wandering afar from the original topic but do go LOOK at the
evidence regarding HFCS. Just because it's an industrial miracle
doesn't mean it's good for you.
I'd like you to explain the phenomenon of obese babies, or refute any
of the biochemical pathways that Lustig cites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
"...and enough basic chemistry to see that it's pretty close to table
sugar or honey from a digestion POV." <== There's your fallacy.
"pretty close" is not the same.
Peter Rathmann
See above where the original journal article was cited as:
March 2005 issue of Health Promotion Journal of Australia. The
website was provided only as a convenient online resource to the
journal article for those who might not have a direct subscription.
>
> The "count" in Australia is a prime example. They admittedly left out
> large numbers of cyclists that passed by certain locations.
They excluded *one* location out of 64 due to a bike rally which
happened to be routed past that location one year and resulted in
almost ten times as many cyclists as normal passing that location.
> They did not
> account for differences in weather.
Actually the study explicitly states that weather conditions were
similar on the days when the counts were taken.
> And it was a study done only one
> year after the law went into effect.
Odd then that they were able to report on the number of cyclists
observed at the sample sites both one year and two years after the
MHL.
>
> Do you want the reality? Probably not, but here it is:
>
> "In the first year of Australian law, a count in a few cities like Perth
> (west coast) showed that the number of cyclists had decreased by about
> 30%. This number gradually returned to its previous level."
>
> So not only was the count that showed a 30% decline intentionally
> manipulated to show a greater decline than actually occurred, the level
> "returned" to the previous level later. If anything, the "return to the
> previous level" is technically incorrect because the level never
> declined 30% to begin with.
How about giving a reference when you include a quoted statement? And
where did you get the "level never declined 30% to begin with" when
both your (unnamed) source and mine agree that it did in fact do just
that.
As for the 'return to the previous level' I'd note that cycling had a
long history of growth in Australia prior to the MHL, so it's not
surprising that the numbers would eventually come back up - but that's
back up to the level they had reached a decade or more earlier and not
to what they probably would have been in the absence of the MHL. From
the same article in the Health Promotion Journal of Aus. it indicates
that the census data show the following percentages for bicycle
commuting:
1976: 1.11
1986: 1.63 (substantial growth prior to any MHL)
1996: 1.19 (after 6 years of the MHL the level is hardly any better
than it was 20 years before and well down from the level of '86).
>
> You have to learn to look critically at references from organizations
> that have a specific agenda.
The reference was from the Health Promotion Journal of Australia -
what do you think is their specific agenda?
Jay Beattie
wrote:
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> considered Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:30:40
> -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
> >On 02/04/10 8:15 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> >> enacted has resulted in a decline in cycling.
>
> >Nope. It doesn't matter how many times people the AHZ's say it, it
> >doesn't make it true. It's just one of their "big lies."
>
> Statistics on it have been quoted many times.
> So unless you claim to have found some alternative ones, you are the
> one promoting a lie.
>
> Put up or shut up.
We enacted a helmet law here in Oregon. Cycling has tripled.
Kids are so used to wearing helmets for everyting -- football,
baseball, skiing, skateboarding -- that I find it hard to believe that
they are staying off their bikes because of any MHL. They are staying
off bikes because their parents drive them everywhere and because
their parents believe that cycling is dangerous -- based on their own
perceptions and not due to any Bell ads. Really, when was the last
time you even saw a Bell ad in a magaziine of general circulation? The
dorks who are afraid of cycling are not subscribing to Velo News or
Buycycling.
The commercials I see have me worried about mucus, germs on my toilet,
H1N1, seasonal allergies, fibromyalgia and lawn weeds. No fear-of-
bicycling commercials, AFAIK. -- Jay Beattie..
landotter
>
> "...and enough basic chemistry to see that it's pretty close to table
> sugar or honey from a digestion POV." <== There's your fallacy.
> "pretty close" is not the same.
Here we go again--you're going to have a strong opinion with no actual
evidence--a classic religious experience. Like those having a
fundamentalist viewpoint--you think that circumstantial evidence can
somehow prove the impossible! It's hilarious every single time!
Sucrose, honey, and HFCS are all around 50/50 glucose/fructose. There
has not been a single study that shows that one is less or more
healthful than the other. The only issue is that HFCS has an image
problem--so it's the scapegoat. Sorta like how people around the turn
of the century liked to beat up some Paddies after a night drinking.
My classic question is: how does the rise in HFCS use and it's
correlation in the rising obesity rates in the UK work out?
Considering that the UK doesn't use HFCS. Is it magic? Or simply some
type of particle physics phenomena that's the real reason they built
the Hadron Collider? "Vy is yankee syrup ending up on our butts??"
[/snoooort!]
Do read a bit of history--the MSG crowd was so sure of themselves for
years--and without any evidence ruined a lot of potentially decent
Chinese food.
Peter Rathmann
> This is rich.
>
> We may be wandering afar from the original topic but do go LOOK at the
> evidence regarding HFCS. Just because it's an industrial miracle
> doesn't mean it's good for you.
>
> I'd like you to explain the phenomenon of obese babies, or refute any
> of the biochemical pathways that Lustig cites.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Already seen it and found it entirely unconvincing with regard to
Lustig's claim that fructose is a uniquely 'bad' form of sugar. The
evidence he has that is convincing is that which links excessive
calorie consumption to a variety of health effects - i.e. kids who
drink lots of sugared soda have more health problems. But that's
hardly surprising or controversial. OTOH, his evidence tying any
problems *to fructose in particular* is very weak. About the only
fructose-specific experimental evidence in the video was the 6-day
study of some med students and comparing glucose and fructose. Of
course 6 days is too short to see chronic health effects and indeed
this study didn't find any - so it hardly counts as evidence that
there will eventually be such effects.
What he needs to prove his hypothesis is something far more
conclusive, such as a longer-term animal study with a test group
consuming lots of fructose and a control group that's otherwise the
same (exercise levels and overall consumption) but with glucose
instead of fructose. But he doesn't have that so he parades forth
lots of graphs showing that consuming lots of excess calories isn't
good for you and then pretending that this proves that fructose is the
culprit. It's a nice sleight-of-hand trick, but it's not good
science.
>
> "...and enough basic chemistry to see that it's pretty close to table
> sugar or honey from a digestion POV." <== There's your fallacy.
> "pretty close" is not the same.
You should view the video again - Lustig actually agrees that sucrose
(50% glucose, 50% fructose) is essentially just as bad as HFCS (typ.
45% glucose, 55% fructose). He's only concerned that HFCS is cheaper
and therefore more likely to be used more. Honey he just plain gets
wrong. Not in this video, but elsewhere he claims that honey doesn't
contain fructose - that's incorrect since it actually has about the
same fructose/glucose ratio as HFCS with a few other sugars also
present in much smaller amounts.
And Lustig's biochemistry is highly suspect. Besides making that
basic error about honey, he also mislabels ethanol as a carbohydrate,
which is usually defined as something that can be decomposed into
carbon plus water, i.e. a chemical formula of C(n) H(2m) O(m).
Sugars, starches, etc. qualify; ethanol (C2H6O) does not. Nor does
fructose meet the standard medical definitions of a poison as he
claims on the video. His claim in the video is that fructose is very
similar to ethanol when it's processed in the liver ("alcohol without
the buzz"). If that were true then I'd expect to see just as many
soda drinkers suffering from cirrhosis of the liver as we see with
alcoholics - but we don't, because it's not true.
SMS
> SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> considered Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:30:40
> -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 02/04/10 8:15 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know what you've been smoking, but every helmet law ever
>>> enacted has resulted in a decline in cycling.
>>
>> Nope. It doesn't matter how many times people the AHZ's say it, it
>> doesn't make it true. It's just one of their "big lies."
>
> Statistics on it have been quoted many times.
Indeed they have. Being quoted over and over again doesn't make them any
more true.
The problems with the Australia "study" (and I hesitate to use the word
study)) are two-fold. First, they chose to not count all cyclists
passing the counting points. Second, they sampled _once_ each year for
only the year immediately before and the year immediately after the
helmet law. Yet within a few years cycling levels were higher than even
before the helmet law. As you would expect, the "study" was expressly
designed to try to prove something that wasn't actually true.
The problem with the people behind cyclehelmets.org is that they use
junk science and junk statistics to try to prove an agenda that is at
odds with the facts. They do a great dis-service to the cause they
purport to support, stopping mandatory helmet laws.
The way to stop MHLs is _not_ by becoming pathological liars, like
they've become, or makings idiotic statements about walking helmets and
gardening helmets, it's by promoting the idea that adults should be able
to choose the level of risk they accept in their lives.
Most of us that have acquired even the most basic critical thinking
skills are able to look at actual scientifically conducted studies of
injury and fatality rates for helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists and
reach the conclusion that in the unlikely event of head-impact crash,
helmets make a very large difference in the level of injury and the
number of fatalities.
Be very cautious of people with agendas promoting their cause using junk
science and junk statistics.
SMS
> Is Trek pushing for laws that would require cyclists to ride Treks (or
> lugged carbon framed bikes, or some other proxy for Trek bikes) or
> else face punitive fines?
No. And Bell isn't pushing for laws requiring cyclists to wear Bell
helmets. Trek expects to benefit because they are the largest bicycle
company selling in the U.S.. Bell expects to benefit because they are
the largest helmet company selling in the U.S..
SMS
> On Apr 3, 12:05 pm, Phil W Lee<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> wrote:
>> SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com> considered Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:30:40
>> -0700 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> On 02/04/10 8:15 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't know what you've been smoking, but every helmet law ever
>>>> enacted has resulted in a decline in cycling.
>>
>>> Nope. It doesn't matter how many times people the AHZ's say it, it
>>> doesn't make it true. It's just one of their "big lies."
>>
>> Statistics on it have been quoted many times.
>> So unless you claim to have found some alternative ones, you are the
>> one promoting a lie.
>>
>> Put up or shut up.
>
> We enacted a helmet law here in Oregon. Cycling has tripled.
I'm sure you could have Frank and Guy put together a "study" for you
that would prove the opposite. You can do wonders with the junk science
and junk statistics that they are so fond of.
Bill Sornson
> You can do wonders with the junk
> science and junk statistics
Back to global warming already?!?
LOL
Barry
> are able to look at actual scientifically conducted studies of injury and
> fatality rates for helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists and reach the
> conclusion that in the unlikely event of head-impact crash, helmets make a
> very large difference in the level of injury and the number of fatalities.
Can you give some references to these studies?
SMS
No. You are well aware of the studies. You have seen them referenced in
numerous helmet threads. You can choose to believe actual studies,
conducted using scientific methods, or you can choose to believe the
junk science studies that are designed to prove whatever the person
behind the study is trying to prove. It's your choice. I have no bicycle
in this race. I often don't wear a helmet and I am strongly opposed to
MHLs for adults. I just hate seeing people being misled by people that
are intentionally manipulating surveys to suit their own agenda.
Tom Kunich
news:9tofr5pc9jlkvfgu9...@4ax.com...
>
> I started out thinking they must be good.
>
> Then I read the actual research.
> You should try that sometime, instead of just regurgitating the
> scaremongers attempts to defend their junk science.
> Maybe your problem is understanding it?
I was the same way. I've been wearing helmets since I raced motorcycles back
in the 60's. However, I have never had any injuries prevented by a bicycle
helmet.
Barry
>>> are able to look at actual scientifically conducted studies of injury and
>>> fatality rates for helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists and reach the
>>> conclusion that in the unlikely event of head-impact crash, helmets make a
>>> very large difference in the level of injury and the number of fatalities.
>>
>> Can you give some references to these studies?
>
> No. You are well aware of the studies. You have seen them referenced in
> numerous helmet threads.
No, I'm not aware of any studies that are truly scientific and credible.
Maybe there are some; if so, I'd appreciate knowing which ones you consider
valid. The "85% reduction" case-control study (Thomson et al.), which is
cited so often, seems pretty bogus to me.
SMS
> Then I read the actual research.
Apparently not.
> You should try that sometime
I've read all of it. The difference is that I am able to distinguish
between true research, done impartially, without any attempt to
influence the results, and the junk science like the study in Australia,
which even those that quote it admit that they manipulated it.
Here's the bottom line. Frank doesn't wear a helmet. He is extremely
upset that all the actual research shows benefits in terms of injury and
fatality rates because it means that he's engaging in behavior that
some, not me, would criticize because he is not minimizing his risks.
Rather than simply stating, "I accept the small increased risk of not
wearing a helmet," he decides to promulgate as much junk science as
possible in order to prove to others what he himself is well aware that
is not true. He has his ally, Guy Chapman in the U.K., to help him
promote junk science. To complete the ruse, he runs around telling
people about "research" that he's done, and urges people to go to libraries.
Tom Kunich
news:4bb7e8a6$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> No, I'm not aware of any studies that are truly scientific and credible.
> Maybe there are some; if so, I'd appreciate knowing which ones you
> consider
> valid. The "85% reduction" case-control study (Thomson et al.), which is
> cited so often, seems pretty bogus to me.
You mean that you don't believe that people who ride without helmets and
those who do ride differently?
Shame on you.
Jay Beattie
> "Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in messagenews:9tofr5pc9jlkvfgu9...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > I started out thinking they must be good.
>
> > Then I read the actual research.
> > You should try that sometime, instead of just regurgitating the
> > scaremongers attempts to defend their junk science.
> > Maybe your problem is understanding it?
>
> I was the same way. I've been wearing helmets since I raced motorcycles back
> in the 60's. However, I have never had any injuries prevented by a bicycle
> helmet.
I have. There are plenty of biomechanical and hospital-based studies
(as you know) supporting the proposition that helmets can prevent
scalp injuries and focal skull fractures -- which are usually not
fatal but are still not fun. Unless you get sewed up for free at
Muzi's shop, you're looking at a serious co-pay and a bad haircut.
Whether a helmet could or could not prevent a particular death depends
on the mechanism of death. Populaiton studies are too blunt of a tool
to decide that question. I would admit that the prevetable mechanism
of death (e.g. a focal skull fracture from, say, a rear view mirror
and an untreated hematoma) is rare. I am not relying on my helmet to
save my life. -- Jay Beattie.
Bill Sornson
> I have never had any injuries
> prevented by a bicycle helmet.
ROTFL POTW ROTFL
Tom Kunich
news:4bb7...@news.x-privat.org...
Not clear what you mean here Bill. I've had TWO head injuries in the last 4
months from failures of equipment and landed on my FACE both times. What's
more, looking at the sort of accident I had it appears to me to be the USUAL
injury method on a bicycle.
Frank Krygowski
> On 03/04/10 5:49 PM, Barry wrote:
>
> >> Most of us that have acquired even the most basic critical thinking skills
> >> are able to look at actual scientifically conducted studies of injury and
> >> fatality rates for helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists and reach the
> >> conclusion that in the unlikely event of head-impact crash, helmets make a
> >> very large difference in the level of injury and the number of fatalities.
>
> > Can you give some references to these studies?
>
And the rest is excuses.
You've frequently made the claims, Stephen. You've never given decent
citations.
If you'd seriously cite an article, we could talk about its good
points and bad points. But of course you'd never do that. Instead
you give snippets, distorting their meaning (or lying outright), then
give your infamous "world's greatest authority" pronouncements.
Why not pick a study from
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Helmets_maxi-FAQ
and we can talk in detail about whether Guy's assessments are correct
or not?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 03/04/10 5:58 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> > Then I read the actual research.
>
> Apparently not.
>
> > You should try that sometime
>
> I've read all of it. The difference is that I am able to distinguish
> between true research, done impartially, without any attempt to
> influence the results, and the junk science like the study in Australia,
> which even those that quote it admit that they manipulated it.
>
> Here's the bottom line. Frank doesn't wear a helmet. He is extremely
> upset that all the actual research shows benefits in terms of injury and
> fatality rates because it means that he's engaging in behavior that
> some, not me, would criticize because he is not minimizing his risks.
It's absolutely nonsense to claim that _I_ am the bottom line! There
are two parts to the bottom line. Here they are.
1) Ordinary bicycling does NOT carry inflated risk of serious head
injury. Contrary to the hype, it's about the same risk as motoring.
It's way less risky than walking for transportation. If helmets make
sense for cyclist's risk, they must make more sense for walker's risk.
The citation for the latter is (by memory) Making Cycling Irresistable
by John Pucher. (Ironically, his papers are intended to make American
cycling sound dangerous; but his data show it's several times safer
than American walking!)
2) Widespread helmet use has NOT reduced the rate of serious head
injuries. There have been lots of citations posted, which you've
consistently ignored. Since you refuse to read real scientific
papers, I'll cite the one from popular press, yet again:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html
So cycling is not unusually risky regarding head injuries, and helmets
haven't reduced bicycling's head injury rate. What on earth is the
point of their promotion - except to make money for styrofoam sellers?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I have. There are plenty of biomechanical and hospital-based studies
> (as you know) supporting the proposition that helmets can prevent
Jay, do you understand the difference between a case-control study
using self-selected subjects, and a time-series study of an actual
total population?
The former study people that _chose_ to wear a helmet. Typically,
they pretend that the helmet was the only difference between those
that wore the helmet and those that didn't. Is that really
reasonable?
If that were the case, the helmet-wearing kids in the Thompson &
Rivara (85%!!!) study wouldn't have had about 75% fewer _leg_
injuries.
Of course, the population studies show no such effects. When you put
helmets on lots of people (by promotion or mandate) you don't find
helmets magically protecting legs. Unfortunately, you don't find
helmets protecting heads either - at least, not against serious head
injuries.
The idea of using a self-selected group for a case-control study is
scientific nonsense. It would never be tolerated in most serious
work. But it's the foundation of helmet promotion.
- Frank Krygowski
Bill Sornson
>> ROTFL POTW ROTFL
I'm sorry for your misfortunes, Tom, but they don't mitigate your /de facto/
meaningless statement. (Hint: if I crash and my helmet core shatters in
pieces and I'm unhurt, I can't PROVE that the lid prevented injury. I know
damn well that it did, but one cannot prove a negative.)
HTH
Frank Krygowski
> (Hint: if I crash and my helmet core shatters in
> pieces and I'm unhurt, I can't PROVE that the lid prevented injury.
Likewise, if you wore oversized, fragile styrofoam clown shoes around
the house for a week, you'd probably break one. You couldn't _prove_
it didn't protect you from a broken foot. But you'd be a fool to
pretend it did.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Kunich
news:5bdeddea-827a-4c2e...@k13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Of course, the population studies show no such effects. When you put
> helmets on lots of people (by promotion or mandate) you don't find
> helmets magically protecting legs. Unfortunately, you don't find
> helmets protecting heads either - at least, not against serious head
> injuries.
Let's underscore this - I've had two serious accidents in which a helmet was
supposed to assist. They did not, despite the fact that I was in full belief
of the claims.
Tom Kunich
>
> I'm sorry for your misfortunes, Tom, but they don't mitigate your /de
> facto/ meaningless statement. (Hint: if I crash and my helmet core
> shatters in pieces and I'm unhurt, I can't PROVE that the lid prevented
> injury. I know damn well that it did, but one cannot prove a negative.)
Let's describe the truth - the helmet DIDN'T even touch!!!
Chalo
So if Trek bought Specialized, Pacific, Giant, Kona, etc., and having
done that, lobbied to have laws put in place requiring every road user
to own a bicycle or pay a punitive fine, would that be OK with you?
Chalo
Frank Krygowski
> Bell isn't pushing for laws requiring cyclists to wear Bell
> helmets.
Bell is a major sponsor of Safe Kids, Inc.
Safe Kids is the most prominent lobbyist organization for mandatory
helmet laws.
You suppose there's no connection? Is that not a bit naive?
- Frank Krygowski
Bill Sornson
Oh for God's sake. You fell on your FACE -- not once, but twice. Unless
you were wearing a full-face helmet, what the hell did you expect?
Bill "is a jock 'supposed to assist' with a kick in the ass?" S.
Bill Sornson
Because it's not designed to protect the face. HTH!!!
SMS
> However, I have never had any injuries prevented by a
> bicycle helmet.
Hmm, did you go to the same school as Guy and Frank that teaches logic
like that?
SMS
<snip>
> Whether a helmet could or could not prevent a particular death depends
> on the mechanism of death. Populaiton studies are too blunt of a tool
> to decide that question. I would admit that the prevetable mechanism
> of death (e.g. a focal skull fracture from, say, a rear view mirror
> and an untreated hematoma) is rare. I am not relying on my helmet to
> save my life. -- Jay Beattie.
Well stated.
While I hesitate to provide references yet again, maybe the person
asking for them was really asking in good faith.
There are so many studies that prove the obvious, that it's hard to know
where to start.
He can start here:
"http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/191".
Oh, BTW, while you have a point about population studies, it's also
important to point out that nearly every population study ever done also
supports the position that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities.
That's when our favorite trolls start up with 'but, but, but, surveys
show that cycling declined as helmet ue increased, and the decline in
cycling is what caused the reduction.' That's why it's important to
understand that the claims of reductions in cycling as a result of
helmet laws are completely bogus and without merit.
If there's one thing that's critically important it's to be vigilant
against the junk science and junk statistics that are trotted out by
people like Guy and Frank.
Peter Cole
> What he needs to prove his hypothesis is something far more
> conclusive, such as a longer-term animal study with a test group
> consuming lots of fructose and a control group that's otherwise the
> same (exercise levels and overall consumption) but with glucose
> instead of fructose.
There was this one:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
But there has been lots of criticism:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032902912.html
Tom Kunich
>
> Oh for God's sake. You fell on your FACE -- not once, but twice. Unless
> you were wearing a full-face helmet, what the hell did you expect?
I don't remember what caused the first crash in which I fell SIDEWAYS but
the final crash happened when the carbon fork collapsed throwing me head
first onto the ground.
In any case, we are told that exactly these sorts of accidents are those in
which the helmet is supposed to protect you.
It didn't in either case.
landotter
From the WaPo article:
>JLH: Something about the way the study was written sounds as though researchers set out to link HFCS to >obesity, not to determine whether such a link exists.
The sloppy methodology is pretty inexcusable for Princeton. I'd expect
work like that from a three man shacky institute trying to prove the
effectiveness of Fingerhut Lexan glow-in-tha-dark praying hands, not
from an actual university.
At any rate--I wasn't really trying to get all argumentative about
junk food--it's just that I can both despise the corn lobby, yet hold
independent and rational opinions about their product at the same
time. It's a good exercise for the brain. It's like how I find most
things about Nazi Germany pretty revolting--but dammit if they didn't
have a really talented group of costume designers.
Barry
> for them was really asking in good faith.
Yes, I really was asking in good faith.
> He can start here:
> "http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/191".
Thank you. I downloaded the article, and plan to read it carefully.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> While I hesitate to provide references yet again, maybe the person
> asking for them was really asking in good faith.
>
> There are so many studies that prove the obvious, that it's hard to know
> where to start.
>
> He can start here:
> "http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/191".
So let's discuss that one.
First, their fundamental claim is this: Bike helmets have been
promoted in Sweden for a long time now. Head injuries of kids have
dropped. Therefore the helmets must be working.
Are there any shortcomings in their logic?
Let's start with this sentence: "In our study, we found a reduction of
11.5% in the proportion of head injuries among children aged 0-15
years, but no change in the proportion among teenagers and adults aged
16-50 years." IOW, they seem to be claiming that helmets work for
young kids, but - except for that one sentence - glossing over the
fact that the same helmets apparently don't work for older kids and
adults.
Next, let's talk about exposure. One of the facts that Scharf
routinely dismisses is that the fear mongering that goes with helmet
promotion decreases cycling. The authors admit that, except for two
consecutive years, they have no data on the amount of kids' cycling.
If, indeed, kids' cycling got less popular in Sweden due to scare
tactics - as it did in many other countries - their main point is
invalid.
And since we're discussing the supposed effects of helmet use, we
should check the paper for the correlation data between helmet use and
serious head injury. But their correlations are with time, not with
helmet use. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, to
mathematically assess the benefit of wearing a helmet.
They have only vague data on helmet use. Aside from omitted details
on how that data was collected, there are no specifics on time trends
of helmet use (i.e. whether linear increase with time, or - more
likely - greater increases in response to promotion efforts at certain
times). Also, they claim to have observed 80% of pre-school children
"used a bicycle helmet." There's no explanation of whether that means
"used one at least once" or "use one whenever they ride." The latter
- which many readers would believe - is unheard of in countries with
no strongly enforced mandatory helmet law.
There is a minor mistake in their two critical graphs, and of course
it's in a direction to overstate the danger of cycling. The ordinate
label is "Incident x 100 000." What it should say is "Incident per
100 000." In other words, they're mixing up multiplication and
division. I'd call that inconsequential, except helmet promoters
sometimes grab these supposedly huge numbers of incidents to terrify
people.
More on the one graph (the age 0-15 graph) that shows benefit. From
that graph, it's clear that all the statistically significant decrease
for the 0-15 age group happened from 1987 to 1991. From 1991 to 1996
the curve showing incidents of head injury per 100000 population is
nearly flat.
Do they want us to not notice that? Or do they want us to conclude
that helmet wearing reached a peak among kids in 1991, then barely
changed? If there was any increase beyond 1991, those post-1991
helmets were ineffective, based on their methods. And as already
stated, any increase in helmet use by those older than age 15 never
was effective at all.
But still, they claim that helmets should be promoted. Hmm.
Other problems? As they say, "During the study period, a general
improvement in road safety might have affected the result by reducing
the rate of injuries to cyclists... For instance, from 1998 to 2002
Sweden had a safer traffic environment for bicyclists because both the
number of roads with a speed limit of 30 km/hr and bike paths
increased."
So are there confounding factors at work? One way of assessing this
would be with a well-chosen control group. And in every study I've
seen, pedestrian casualties have dropped over time along with
bicyclist casualties. That fact never seems to dissuade helmet
promoters from pretending the bicyclist improvements were due to
helmets alone. Never mind that the similarly improving pedestrians
aren't asked to wear them. Personally, I suspect that changes in
medical procedures - for example, the increasing use of CAT scans, or
other improved diagnostic techniques - might be responsible for most
of the decrease in hospitalizations for (possible) head injury. If an
ER can tell more surely that there is no HI, then there would be a
decrease in "just in case" hospitalizations for observation.
And speaking of that missing control group - what's the rate of
pedestrian head injuries in Sweden? In the US, pedestrian fatalities
are over 3 times as frequent, per mile traveled. That ratio is even
worse per hour exposure or in total count. (Nationally, roughly 5000
American pedestrians die in a year; roughly 750 cyclists.) I don't
know if it's the same in Sweden - but in America, putting helmets on
cyclists makes less sense than putting them on pedestrians. (Yes, I
know Scharf mocks this idea; but he never explains why he thinks the
numbers are wrong.)
In any case, Scharf's pointed to a paper that _assumes_ that decreases
in young kids' head injuries is due to _assumed_ increases in helmet
use. Its data, however, shows this must have worked only until 1991
for those young kids, and never worked at all for those older than
15. It doesn't actually correlate head injury with helmet use. It
doesn't use an external control group. It doesn't quantify the actual
risk of cycling, especially compared to other similar risks.
But it is typical of helmet promotion papers. "We found something
good to say about helmets, if you don't look too closely - and Lord
knows, that's an easy way to get a paper published!"
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
> On Apr 3, 9:39 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have. There are plenty of biomechanical and hospital-based studies
> > (as you know) supporting the proposition that helmets can prevent
> > scalp injuries and focal skull fractures...
>
> Jay, do you understand the difference between a case-control study
> using self-selected subjects, and a time-series study of an actual
> total population?
Yes. Population studies do not speak to what happens physiologically
when a subject is dropped on his or her head with or without a helmet.
Unlike Tom, I have had several accidents where I broke my helmet and
at least avoided scalp injury if not skull fracture. Population
studies bear very little relationship to my personal experience, being
that I spend far more time on my bike than the average person in often
inclement weather with poor traction. I am in at-risk population
that, at least in my case, has benefitted from wearing a helmet. I
have also not been scared away from bicycling by helmets, gloves,
padded shorts, nut-slot saddles, release bindings or padded bar tape.
On very hot days, I will take my helmet off while climbing. It is so
well vented, that I literally do not feel it on my head when
descending or riding on the flats. It is a benefit in the rain.
There is no down side except for cost. -- Jay Beattie.
Jay Beattie
Assuming they could get that purchase past the FTC, which is unlikely,
they can lobby for whatever the hell they want in 50 different
legislatures and Guam and Puerto Rico, too, for that matter. Go dog
go!
All the conspiracy freaks and Cassandras ought to look through the
legislative history of their respective MHLs (if they even have one)
and see who (1) proposed the bill, and (2) who testified or submitted
exhibits in support of the bill, and (3) who voted for it. Then check
the persons who donated to the legislators who voted for it. Finally,
after performing that research, report back with any evidence that
Bell was involved in the legislation. I will do that tomorrow. I
have done it before, though, and found nothing. But I will do it
again. In Oregon, it was a Kaiser nurse soccer-mom who pushed for the
MHL for kids. Recently, a Eugene legislator, Floyd Prozanski -- beer
maker and avid bicyclist -- who proposed an all-ages MHL which was
rejected by the BTA, among others. He withdrew his proposal. From
what I can tell, he has not received a dime from Bell Sports. He had
an accident where he broke his helmet, so he thought they were a good
idea. I could be wrong, though. He could be receiving PAC money from
Big Helmet.
Trek is supporting legislators and legislation at the federal level
that improves bicycle infrastructure. http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/3244.html
e.g. SAFTEA-LU money for bicycle facilities along with mass transit,
etc. No helmet legislation, which is a local issue and unrelated to
federal funding of infrastructure. The only donation requests I get
from Trek are for the Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer.
Sounds pretty sinister to me. -- Jay Beattie.