|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
On Monday, July 1, 2013 8:07:20 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2013 12:49:07 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote: It is uncontroverted that helmets prevent certain injuries. Say that. It will set you free. Resist the urge to make any statement about the risks of walking, gardening or other activities. We're just talking about the protective benefits of helmets. OK. A few days ago, helping my son-in-law, I bumped my head while trying to fetch a ladder in his garage. A helmet certainly would have prevented that injury. Smarmy BS! You can't know "certainly". Besides, you would have been *more* likely to hit your head more often because of the diameter, probably snapping your neck, and might even get caught on the overhead garage door rail and hang yourself! So I believe they do prevent certain injuries. Now I feel so free! ;-) How odd that such a fact is considered adequate justification for "Never ride your bicycle without wearing a helmet!" Does such thinking apply to _any_ other protective device for _any_ other activity? Probably. What difference does it make? |
Ads |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
On Monday, July 1, 2013 8:40:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2013 6:51:32 AM UTC-4, Duane Hébert wrote: Because Forester says that all you need is his book and you can cycle safely. Saying that helmets are useful goes against the boss. Same with bike lanes or paths or anything else. Duane, as is often the case, you are spouting false statements because you have not bothered to do the minimal reading required to know what you're talking about. Supercilious contempt. First, Forester does not say "all you need is his book and you can cycle safely." If that were the case, there would have been no reason for him to initiate a program of cycling education, nor a program of certifying instructors for that program. He would not have done the volumes of writing that he's done since writing his book _Effective Cycling_ (in multiple editions), including other books. Still all "his book", right? Second, "helmets are useful" is something that Forester himself has, IMO, terribly overemphasized in the past. The first time I met him (in 1980, I believe) he praised helmets excessively (and honestly, obnoxiously) in a talk he gave. However, in subsequent editions of his book, he's tremendously downgraded the pro-helmet rhetoric. The current edition does mention the reduction in cycling caused by MHLs, notes that countries with no helmet culture do not have high death rates, and says "The strong emphasis on the need for helmet wearing serves to exaggerate the fear that cycling is inherently dangerous and the belief that helmets provide great protection." Pandering to what little base he's got. He concludes with only the most mild endorsement, "If you do a lot of cycling, particularly fast cycling, helmet wearing may be advisable." Personally, I think he'd have downgraded his helmet advice further, if it were possible to do so without obviously conflicting with his past statements. I could give more details, but it would be called bragging in this forum. Yeah, we know - it was your personal influence that brought the helmet promotion down. Let's just say that if you want to paraphrase Forester, you should at _least_ read Forester first. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
On Monday, July 1, 2013 11:56:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2013 9:43:54 AM UTC-4, sms wrote: The ironic thing is that there are many activities where protective equipment is available but often not required (at least for adults), and no one is screaming about how the availability of such equipment makes others think that the activity is exceptionally dangerous. We went kayaking on Saturday. I can't recall there ever being a drowning in the slough where we were. The rental companies train participants in how to prevent a capsize and the slough isn't very wide or deep, yet almost everyone wears a PFD even though PFD's aren't that comfortable. The U.S. averages about 4000 accidental drownings per year. Look it up. The U.S. averages about 730 bike fatalities per year. Which is the bigger problem? PFDs are almost total proof against drowning. Helmets are nowhere near total proof against bike fatalities, despite astonishing hype to the contrary. Now, when a person chooses not to wear a PFD when kayaking on calm waters (which, BTW, is very common) are bystanders yelling "Where's your PFD?" Are people be writing letters and internet comments saying "They shouldn't get insurance coverage" or "they shouldn't be rescued"? Do kayak shops really have posters saying "Always wear your PFD!" Somehow, the kayak shop run by my friends, seems to have forgotten to put up such a poster. I don't know anything about the per-hour fatality rate of kayaking & canoeing, vs. that of bicycling. But I strongly suspect that bicycling is safer, yet gets much more fear mongering. IOW, I think Scharf is not alone in his anti-cycling rhetoric. - Frank Krygowski "PFDs are almost total proof against drowning. Helmets are nowhere near total proof against bike fatalities, despite astonishing hype to the contrary.." Sorry to burst your bubble but a PFD is NOT almost total proof against drowning. A PFD, which can be something as simple as a seat cushion, does NOT KEEP THE FACE OUT OF THE WATER IF THE PERSON IS UNCONCIOUS OR INCAPACITATED/Fatigued. You are thinking of a LIFEJACKET which WILL keep a head out of the water. There's a huge difference between a PFD and a lifejacket. Cheers |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
Sir Ridesalot writes:
On Monday, July 1, 2013 11:56:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2013 9:43:54 AM UTC-4, sms wrote: The ironic thing is that there are many activities where protective equipment is available but often not required (at least for adults), and no one is screaming about how the availability of such equipment makes others think that the activity is exceptionally dangerous. We went kayaking on Saturday. I can't recall there ever being a drowning in the slough where we were. The rental companies train participants in how to prevent a capsize and the slough isn't very wide or deep, yet almost everyone wears a PFD even though PFD's aren't that comfortable. The U.S. averages about 4000 accidental drownings per year. Look it up. The U.S. averages about 730 bike fatalities per year. Which is the bigger problem? PFDs are almost total proof against drowning. Helmets are nowhere near total proof against bike fatalities, despite astonishing hype to the contrary. Now, when a person chooses not to wear a PFD when kayaking on calm waters (which, BTW, is very common) are bystanders yelling "Where's your PFD?" Are people be writing letters and internet comments saying "They shouldn't get insurance coverage" or "they shouldn't be rescued"? Do kayak shops really have posters saying "Always wear your PFD!" Somehow, the kayak shop run by my friends, seems to have forgotten to put up such a poster. I don't know anything about the per-hour fatality rate of kayaking & canoeing, vs. that of bicycling. But I strongly suspect that bicycling is safer, yet gets much more fear mongering. IOW, I think Scharf is not alone in his anti-cycling rhetoric. - Frank Krygowski "PFDs are almost total proof against drowning. Helmets are nowhere near total proof against bike fatalities, despite astonishing hype to the contrary." Sorry to burst your bubble but a PFD is NOT almost total proof against drowning. A PFD, which can be something as simple as a seat cushion, does NOT KEEP THE FACE OUT OF THE WATER IF THE PERSON IS UNCONCIOUS OR INCAPACITATED/Fatigued. You are thinking of a LIFEJACKET which WILL keep a head out of the water. There's a huge difference between a PFD and a lifejacket. They are more demonstrably effective, as their function is something that can easily and ethically be tested. They are probably more effective, as well, but we just don't really know. Apples and oranges... er, more like apples and chicken soup, anyway. The hazards they are intended to protect against are equally disparate (though a PFD might cushion a blow to the head, and a closed cell foam helmet liner might help keep you afloat. Hmmm... ) But some concepts are apply to the discussion. PFD's, for example, are *required* for every passenger on boats here, I think; and the public authorities consistently say to *always* use them. |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
On 7/1/2013 11:18 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
"PFDs are almost total proof against drowning. Helmets are nowhere near total proof against bike fatalities, despite astonishing hype to the contrary." Sorry to burst your bubble but a PFD is NOT almost total proof against drowning. A PFD, which can be something as simple as a seat cushion, does NOT KEEP THE FACE OUT OF THE WATER IF THE PERSON IS UNCONCIOUS OR INCAPACITATED/Fatigued. You are thinking of a LIFEJACKET which WILL keep a head out of the water. There's a huge difference between a PFD and a lifejacket. My daughter explained that to me on Saturday when I called a PFD a life vest. She said "don't call it a life vest, call it a PFD because it doesn't necessary save your life if you end up in the water." As you stated, you still have to be able to hold your head up, and you still need to be able to have a way to shore, especially if the water is cold since you can get hypothermia rather quickly. Helmets reduce bike fatalities. PFDs reduce drownings. Neither is total protection. Frank apparently now understands these facts. |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
datakoll writes:
http://www.nrsweb.com/shop/product_list.asp?deptid=1768 Replacement snap buckle halves twenty-five cents. Good deal. |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
Frank Krygowski writes:
On Sunday, June 30, 2013 4:25:30 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote: We really should skip the "AHZ" bit and probably change it to "AMHLZ." I don't think anyone is against helmets per se. I agree, but I doubt anyone posting here will listen to you. Dan, for example, sees insults in mild and neutral phrases, at least if they're written by me, but slings obscenities and "zealot" without compunction. Gosh, pick me out, will you ;-) (FWIW, while your'e ardent and vehemnet as ever, I think you appear to running be low on "zeal".) It is likely that requiring helmets does cause some reduction in the numbers of riders for some period of time, if only because some riders do not have the money to buy a helmet. Others may stop riding because being told to do anything by the government is offensive (although this type of person just rides without a helmet). Others may stop because they think helmets look dorky. I think you're ignoring lots of data to make the above statements. While Scharf continually pretends the enforced all-ages MHLs in Australia and New Zealand caused no reductions in cycling, there are countless people who feel otherwise. That includes cycling organizations like the CTC and the ECF. There are even some tiny signs that the LAB is beginning to modify its acquiescence regarding MHLs. (Sorry for the acronym soup, but all those have been defined here, recently.) The various "MHL's" are intended to make use happen. Most actual mandatory helmet *laws* are not enforced, I believe. The various organizations and their events... well, that's between them and their members and participants. I'm a loner, Dottie... This site has a lot of evidence on the continuing effect of an enforced MHL, with links to much data: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bicycle_numbers.html Of course, since it's helmet skeptic, certain posters will call it "zealot" and discount all its evidence. Not all its evidence. *All* evidence is what it is. But yeah, I can do without the heartburn and aggravation of mucking through blatant propaganda. (Not sure about this site, but man, that CTC paper you told me to show the kids as an example that *contrasts* propaganda... jeez louise, man! The first two references I checked were pretty sorry, and the second was a clear blatant misuse of non-data!) We have a MHL for kids in Oregon, and I suspect the MHL caused some small reduction in the numbers of riders for some period of time. But that reduction was just a small blip compared to the massive reduction in child ridership that after the 1960s and well before 1994. Recent studies also show that the numbers of kids riding and walking to school is at a record high -- the record starting in 2006. :-) Not much of a record, then! Sweden, Oregon, et al - with MHL's! I'd be curious to see the riding data from the 1960 through 2006. While I agree there are other factors at work, I believe two of the most important are the promotion of helmets, and the claims that riding a bike is terribly dangerous. And those _do_ seem to go hand in hand! Life on and around the roads is worlds apart then and now. http://fitportland.org/record-number.../#.UdCIWvmfiSo http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/con...ub.ckr042.full However, these numbers pale in comparison to national averages in the '60s and '70s when 90% of kids living within a mile or so of school would walk or bike. The racks were choked at Daves Avenue, RJ Fisher, LGHS. My son says that less than ten kids rode with any regularity to his HS. Exactly. BTW, did you catch the _Bicycling_ article (last year, I think) talking about why Johnny can't ride to school? It focused on a case where a committed cycling family was told it was against school rules for the kid to ride, even with his parents, even (IIRC) if he didn't park his bike on school property. Why? Because it's so "dangerous!" Helicopter parenting and societal paranoia is off the charts. Crazy; messed up. Come to Mayberry :-) everybody walkin by the river everybody singin and laughin walkin singin talkin smilin laughin diggin each other (OT: While on vacation this year, I was riding in one of the many towns we visited out west. I came across a guy riding a neat three-wheeler rig, with two full-sized front wheels about 3 feet apart and parallel, a welded steel tube sort of "box" connecting them, and a mostly standard bike frame behind. Inside the "box" were two small boys, maybe six years old or so. One kid yelled very excitedly, "We're going to a birthday party!" I rode along with the dad for a while and asked where he got the neat rig. He said "Mexico. You can't buy things like this in the U.S. They're too 'dangerous'!") They use those things as ice cream trucks around here. Very cool :-) Rather than wasting untold hundreds of hours picking apart mundane studies tending to show that wearing a helmet can prevent certain injuries, the supposed AMHL "advocates" should get to the root causes of the decline in ridership and look at strategies that seem to be working to bring it back. Frank is right that we should address the misconception that bicycling is "really dangerous" -- but screaming about helmets and helmet laws is not the way to do it. For what it's worth, I've never once screamed or yelled about helmets. I have, however, had people yell at me for not wearing one, including some really foul obscenities. I've had a woman interrupt my calm speech in a meeting, yelling that I'd had my say (after about 20 seconds) and that I should shut up. And of course, you're ignoring the tone of the pro-helmet posts in this very forum. Your composure does not excuse your supercilious contempt. And surely you can't doubt that the "bicycling is dangerous" is reinforced by the idea that "you should always wear a helmet!" What non-dangerous activities have mandated or heavily recommended personal protection equipment? Why would such equipment be mandated if the danger is not unusually high? _We're nto in favor of MHL_! This is a point of accord. When you get these non-scientist, self-appointed experts sneering at published and peer reviewed studies and finding no study persuasive except what comes from their own camp, then the AMHL movement starts smelling like a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Come on, Jay, you're a lawyer! You're familiar with contentious issues. Countless sources note that the issue of helmet benefit is far from settled. If you've read many of the papers on this issue, you'd know that there is plenty of data on both sides; it comes down to the quality of the data. (And yes, quality of data, not quantity of papers. It's far easier to get a pro-helmet paper published. At least one journal editor _solicited_ rebuttals before publishing a paper with data showing doubt about helmet value. That same editor's final issue, before retirement, contained a totally unscientific - and un-refereed "My helmet saved my life!" story.) Cogent. Logical. Intelligent. You can't fake it. There is no certification for it. The pro-helmet camp bases its arguments largely on two points: The claim that riding a bike is very dangerous, and that "case-control" studies show wondrous benefit. To a lesser degree, they tout drops in raw counts of "head injuries" after MHLs are passed. (Note that "head injury" =/= TBI) Stop categorizing people into one of two "camps". The helmet skeptic camp claims that riding a bike is _not_ unusually dangerous, with benefits far exceeding risks; that helmet promotion or mandates discourage riding; and that time-series data on per-rider TBI shows no improvement at all with increased helmet use. _I am a helmet skeptic_! Really, ... (started to use the 'F' word; stopped myself; you're welcome... sort of.) And incidentally, it's silly to talk about "non-scientist, self-appointed experts." Some of the people who have written refereed papers on this topic are PhD statisticians, medical doctors, engineers, etc. (While I can't say for sure, some of them may have been written by lawyers. Is that good or bad?) Oops. Posted my "Cogent... can't fake it... no cert... " remark too soon. This hurts legitimate bicycling advocates who are trying to increase ridership rather than fight collateral battles about personal freedoms. The BTA has managed to discourages MHLs without getting hysterical or otherwise losing its focus on getting riders on the road -- and while recognizing the protective benefits of helmets. You say that as if it's absolutely proven that there's really significant protection from helmets. I must have missed him saying that. Quit makign **** up and ascribing it to your strawman "adversary". Sure, it's a popular belief; but if it were truly proven, you wouldn't find so much counter-evidence. Papers would not still be written showing the opposite. (Remember Crocker's failed case-control study?) How could we forget ;-) You would think that the AMHLZs would take this smiling approach rather than the sneering, nit-picking approach that is offensive to other cyclists, advocates, legislators and really anyone who expects to be treated civilly. Jay: I've successfully testified against a MHL (or rather, MH bill). I work with other bike advocates who have strong anti-MHL feelings, and who have many times discouraged legislators from going down that path. I've provided information, citations, sources, etc. for both sides of the argument to classes of college students who have decided against MHLs and have testified to that fact before legislators. You're very important / recognized / prominent / expert / admired / courageous / competent / ... dare I say, "Special" ;-) In this forum, I've been sworn at, "YELLED" at, repeatedly called a "zealot" and worse, despite the fact that I bring far more data and citations to the forum than any other poster. You asked for it, asshole! Look, I'm sorry for picking on you. (Your intelligence is a handicap. Sorry, but it's true.) I *admire* who you are. You *are* a hero of sorts to me and, I think, us. Try to have some tolerance and respect. (FWIW I kind of like the super ninja stuff :-) If you really want to maintain that air of neutrality you're trying to assume, you need to give a similar "be polite" lecture to people like Dan O, Scharf, "Sir," Jute and Duane. A very short list of people you have offended with *personal* contemptuous derision and disdain - impugning anything you *think* you can get a purchase on in an effort to shame them into cowed deference or at least silence. Not working. |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
On 7/1/2013 2:23 PM, Dan wrote:
Sir Ridesalot writes: On Monday, July 1, 2013 11:56:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2013 9:43:54 AM UTC-4, sms wrote: The ironic thing is that there are many activities where protective equipment is available but often not required (at least for adults), and no one is screaming about how the availability of such equipment makes others think that the activity is exceptionally dangerous. We went kayaking on Saturday. I can't recall there ever being a drowning in the slough where we were. The rental companies train participants in how to prevent a capsize and the slough isn't very wide or deep, yet almost everyone wears a PFD even though PFD's aren't that comfortable. The U.S. averages about 4000 accidental drownings per year. Look it up. The U.S. averages about 730 bike fatalities per year. Which is the bigger problem? PFDs are almost total proof against drowning. Helmets are nowhere near total proof against bike fatalities, despite astonishing hype to the contrary. Now, when a person chooses not to wear a PFD when kayaking on calm waters (which, BTW, is very common) are bystanders yelling "Where's your PFD?" Are people be writing letters and internet comments saying "They shouldn't get insurance coverage" or "they shouldn't be rescued"? Do kayak shops really have posters saying "Always wear your PFD!" Somehow, the kayak shop run by my friends, seems to have forgotten to put up such a poster. I don't know anything about the per-hour fatality rate of kayaking & canoeing, vs. that of bicycling. But I strongly suspect that bicycling is safer, yet gets much more fear mongering. IOW, I think Scharf is not alone in his anti-cycling rhetoric. - Frank Krygowski "PFDs are almost total proof against drowning. Helmets are nowhere near total proof against bike fatalities, despite astonishing hype to the contrary." Sorry to burst your bubble but a PFD is NOT almost total proof against drowning. A PFD, which can be something as simple as a seat cushion, does NOT KEEP THE FACE OUT OF THE WATER IF THE PERSON IS UNCONCIOUS OR INCAPACITATED/Fatigued. You are thinking of a LIFEJACKET which WILL keep a head out of the water. There's a huge difference between a PFD and a lifejacket. They are more demonstrably effective, as their function is something that can easily and ethically be tested. They are probably more effective, as well, but we just don't really know. Apples and oranges... er, more like apples and chicken soup, anyway. The hazards they are intended to protect against are equally disparate (though a PFD might cushion a blow to the head, and a closed cell foam helmet liner might help keep you afloat. Hmmm... ) But some concepts are apply to the discussion. PFD's, for example, are *required* for every passenger on boats here, I think; and the public authorities consistently say to *always* use them. What do PFDs have to do with cycling? |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Another Helmet Thread
On 7/1/2013 12:42 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2013 8:40:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2013 6:51:32 AM UTC-4, Duane Hébert wrote: Because Forester says that all you need is his book and you can cycle safely. Saying that helmets are useful goes against the boss. Same with bike lanes or paths or anything else. Duane, as is often the case, you are spouting false statements because you have not bothered to do the minimal reading required to know what you're talking about. Supercilious contempt. Don't bother. I wasn't talking to Frank anyway. I thought we were talking about AHZs. Frank is in a class by himself. First, Forester does not say "all you need is his book and you can cycle safely." If that were the case, there would have been no reason for him to initiate a program of cycling education, nor a program of certifying instructors for that program. He would not have done the volumes of writing that he's done since writing his book _Effective Cycling_ (in multiple editions), including other books. Still all "his book", right? duh. Second, "helmets are useful" is something that Forester himself has, IMO, terribly overemphasized in the past. The first time I met him (in 1980, I believe) he praised helmets excessively (and honestly, obnoxiously) in a talk he gave. However, in subsequent editions of his book, he's tremendously downgraded the pro-helmet rhetoric. The current edition does mention the reduction in cycling caused by MHLs, notes that countries with no helmet culture do not have high death rates, and says "The strong emphasis on the need for helmet wearing serves to exaggerate the fear that cycling is inherently dangerous and the belief that helmets provide great protection." Pandering to what little base he's got. Hey Frank knows him personally so he doesn't have to go by just what the guy prints. And here we are back to MHLs. Who is the one always bringing this up? He concludes with only the most mild endorsement, "If you do a lot of cycling, particularly fast cycling, helmet wearing may be advisable." Personally, I think he'd have downgraded his helmet advice further, if it were possible to do so without obviously conflicting with his past statements. I could give more details, but it would be called bragging in this forum. Yeah, we know - it was your personal influence that brought the helmet promotion down. Seems like a fairly accurate endorsement by Forester. The "mild" part is someone else's opinion. Forester is great for teaching you the obvious interspersed with the idiotic. Let's just say that if you want to paraphrase Forester, you should at _least_ read Forester first. GIYF |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another Helmet Thread | Frank Krygowski[_2_] | Techniques | 52 | June 23rd 13 11:43 PM |
Helmet Thread | Zenon | Racing | 4 | May 11th 11 03:08 PM |
New Helmet Thread | Superfly TNT | Racing | 0 | August 20th 10 10:52 PM |
Very first helmet thread? | Bill Sornson[_5_] | Techniques | 1 | October 14th 09 12:40 AM |
A /different/ helmet thread... | Simon Brooke | UK | 21 | March 2nd 07 03:42 PM |