#211
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On 5/17/2017 4:17 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: Wonderful. But it's never going to happen. Why? Because contrary to the current myth, there are simply not enough bicycle TBI cases to make it worthwhile. Remember, in the U.S. about 99.4% of TBI fatalities have nothing to do with bicycling. About 99% of all hospital treated TBIs have nothing to do with bicycling. 0.6% of TBI fatalities is *plenty enough*. What's the rational reason for spending time and energy on detailed study of a 0.6% problem? It sounds marginally sensible ONLY if you are laser-focused on selling or promoting bike helmets. If instead you are interested in reducing societal costs for brain injury, or a person's overall risk of brain injury, you'd study something that produces a large percentage of brain injuries. Besides, how many TBIs are non-fatal? Almost all of them, obviously. Why do you have to ask? There are research on stuff considerably more goofy/arcane and detached than that. It's true. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/275060 But that doesn't make your proposed project smart! -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
Frank Krygowski writes:
What's the rational reason for spending time and energy on detailed study of a 0.6% problem? To gain knowledge and in the long run decrease the number of such injuries and/or reduce their severeness. It sounds marginally sensible ONLY if you are laser-focused on selling or promoting bike helmets. If instead you are interested in reducing societal costs for brain injury, or a person's overall risk of brain injury, you'd study something that produces a large percentage of brain injuries. The rest of the 99.4% should be researched as well. But it is not like TBIs are researched as one big bulk encompassing 100% of the field. There should be a very big number of approaches from numerous disciplines, and bike accidents with or without helmets is one. Besides, how many TBIs are non-fatal? Almost all of them, obviously. Why do you have to ask? It means there is even less reason to neglect the 0.6% fatal TBIs just because 0.6% is a seemingly small number. It isn't, and behind it is much more. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On 5/17/2017 5:35 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: What's the rational reason for spending time and energy on detailed study of a 0.6% problem? To gain knowledge and in the long run decrease the number of such injuries and/or reduce their severeness. But why start with the 0.6%? It sounds marginally sensible ONLY if you are laser-focused on selling or promoting bike helmets. If instead you are interested in reducing societal costs for brain injury, or a person's overall risk of brain injury, you'd study something that produces a large percentage of brain injuries. The rest of the 99.4% should be researched as well. It's _much_ more sensible to attack the biggest sources of the problem. In the U.S. there are about 50,000 to 60,000 TBI fatalities per year. (It varies, and counts are not precise.) For one year I researched, the count was 56,000. That year there were there were about 750 bicyclist fatalities, of which about 335 were due to TBI. But it is not like TBIs are researched as one big bulk encompassing 100% of the field. There should be a very big number of approaches from numerous disciplines, and bike accidents with or without helmets is one. Besides, how many TBIs are non-fatal? Almost all of them, obviously. Why do you have to ask? It means there is even less reason to neglect the 0.6% fatal TBIs just because 0.6% is a seemingly small number. It isn't, and behind it is much more. If you don't understand that 0.6% is small compared to 99.4%, there's little more I can say. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
Frank Krygowski wrote:
To gain knowledge and in the long run decrease the number of such injuries and/or reduce their severeness. But why start with the 0.6%? That is the part that will help us answer the question if helmets are beneficial. But of course all approaches that make sense should be carried out simultaneously. Which is how it works, as well. It's _much_ more sensible to attack the biggest sources of the problem. People who are at some university institution or some science facility carry on with their own research. There are enough researchers and Ph.D. students to allow for that. In the U.S. there are about 50,000 to 60,000 TBI fatalities per year. (It varies, and counts are not precise.) For one year I researched, the count was 56,000. That year there were there were about 750 bicyclist fatalities, of which about 335 were due to TBI. 335/year is plenty enough to do research on. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On 5/17/2017 5:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/17/2017 5:35 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: What's the rational reason for spending time and energy on detailed study of a 0.6% problem? -snip- It's _much_ more sensible to attack the biggest sources of the problem. -snippy snip- Yeah, what about the deer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFCrJleggrI -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
Emanuel Berg writes:
Radey Shouman wrote: By requiring a head injury, you exclude the cases where helmets actually prevented head injury (or where helmets caused a head injury that would otherwise not have happened). By requiring an accident, you exclude the cases where a helmeted rider took more risk than she otherwise would have, and had a crash she would have avoided without a helmet. By comparing bikers with and without helmets, you risk comparing two populations that are quite different, in ability, in age, in their tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek medical attention, in economic status, and many other factors. Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians, MCs, etc. All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers, and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time. And who never uses a ladder? It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle. Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that surely will fix the problem? And they chose well. Biking in the USA, and in other countries where helmets have become popular, is frequently done by children (think of the children!), or for sport (with rules). For most it's an optional recreational activity, for which a little inconvenience in the name of safety hardly seems unreasonable. The reason walking or driving helmets never got off the ground is not that they make less sense than biking helmets, it's just that few would accept them for ordinary daily activities. A few years ago there was a push by doctors in the UK to ban pointy knives. They said that chefs didn't actually need points, and could work without; points are only good for stabbing others. That one didn't take hold either. -- |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes: Radey Shouman wrote: By requiring a head injury, you exclude the cases where helmets actually prevented head injury (or where helmets caused a head injury that would otherwise not have happened). By requiring an accident, you exclude the cases where a helmeted rider took more risk than she otherwise would have, and had a crash she would have avoided without a helmet. By comparing bikers with and without helmets, you risk comparing two populations that are quite different, in ability, in age, in their tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek medical attention, in economic status, and many other factors. Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians, MCs, etc. All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers, and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time. And who never uses a ladder? It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle. Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that surely will fix the problem? That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick started almost entirely by Bell Inc. The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything but its own ads promoting it.) Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say. Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported) benefit? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:40:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Emanuel Berg writes: Radey Shouman wrote: By requiring a head injury, you exclude the cases where helmets actually prevented head injury (or where helmets caused a head injury that would otherwise not have happened). By requiring an accident, you exclude the cases where a helmeted rider took more risk than she otherwise would have, and had a crash she would have avoided without a helmet. By comparing bikers with and without helmets, you risk comparing two populations that are quite different, in ability, in age, in their tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek medical attention, in economic status, and many other factors. Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians, MCs, etc. All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers, and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time. And who never uses a ladder? It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle. Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that surely will fix the problem? That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick started almost entirely by Bell Inc. The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything but its own ads promoting it.) Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say. Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported) benefit? Cycling has always been camparatively rare in the USA???? When I was growing up, just about every kid had a bicycle in Canada - and it seemed there were a lot more in the USA. Every school had a bank of bike racks, and large numbers of kids biked to school instead of being ferried in by parents in mini-vans / suvs, cuvs etc. Every small town had at least one bicycle shop, In the summer, there were kids on bikes all over town, and we biked out to our favorite fishing holes and swimming holes. The common bike was a single speed coaster bike - with 3 speed Sturmey Archer equipped bikes a close second, and "french gear" bikes - usually 5 or 10 speed, but not uncommonly even 3 and 6 speed (3 on the back and 2 on the crank) |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
On 5/16/2017 12:24 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
By requiring an accident, you exclude the cases where a helmeted rider took more risk than she otherwise would have, and had a crash she would have avoided without a helmet. And you have all the crashes that are not reported at all because the helmet prevented a trip to the emergency room. Helmet effectiveness is vastly under-estimated because there's no way to determine how many people don't seek treatment because they have no injury because of the helmet. |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Shimano Headset
Radey Shouman writes:
All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers, and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time. And who never uses a ladder? It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle. Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that surely will fix the problem? And they chose well. Biking in the USA, and in other countries where helmets have become popular, is frequently done by children (think of the children!), or for sport (with rules). For most it's an optional recreational activity, for which a little inconvenience in the name of safety hardly seems unreasonable. The reason walking or driving helmets never got off the ground is not that they make less sense than biking helmets, it's just that few would accept them for ordinary daily activities. A few years ago there was a push by doctors in the UK to ban pointy knives. They said that chefs didn't actually need points, and could work without; points are only good for stabbing others. That one didn't take hold either. If one would make a serious investigation into this, there would be no mention whatsoever of ladders, knives, chefs in the UK, etc., and the only time cars and MCs would be mentioned is whenever a bike has been hit by or collided into such a vehicle and this is the cause of the accident. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shimano headset with hose clamp (for Frank) | Joerg[_2_] | Techniques | 34 | June 8th 16 03:04 PM |
FA: NOS Shimano Dura Ace 1" HP-7410 threaded headset | retrofan | Marketplace | 0 | August 14th 08 04:41 AM |
WTB: Mavic 305 or Shimano Dura Ace 1" threaded headset | LawBoy01 | Marketplace | 2 | August 14th 08 12:02 AM |
Installing shimano 105 headset | Neil Smith | UK | 1 | November 7th 07 05:49 PM |
FA: Pinarello frame, fork, Shimano Dura Ace headset | retrofan | Marketplace | 0 | July 6th 07 11:14 PM |