Extended stems

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:02:40 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

On Jul 13, 7:40*am, !Jones wrote:
You'll have to
define the term "case-control" because it's not in my vocabulary...

Hmm. You should check with Thompson, Rivara & Thompson, the authors
of the ludicrous "85%" study. The term is part of the title of their
paper: "A Case-Control Study of Effectiveness of Bicycle Safety
Helmets."

- Frank Krygowski

I'm aware of that; *I* just don't know what it is. You'll find that
the vocabulary is not consistent across textbooks of research
methodology.

Jones

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:09:19 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech "Bill
Sornson" wrote:

!Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
wrote:

Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New
Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators
using flawed data made helmets mandatory...

Well, they're a democracy; the good citizens of Australia and New
Zealand can jolly well vote their legislators out of office if they
don't like what they do. If you don't live there, it's not your
problem.

Also an oft-repeated tactic of the anti-lid bunch. When someone who chooses
to wear a helmet says do what you please, THEN they act like the subject was
mandatory use laws all along. Completely separate issues (efficacy versus
compulsion).

BS (endless loop)

Cyclists who wear helmets are part of a demographic group with a
statistically lower risk of being injured in an accident than cyclists
who choose not to... *that* has been shown. It has *not* been proven
that the helmet plays any causal role; there's correlation; that's all
one can say..

Jones

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:38:50 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
wrote:

I have absolutely no problem with personal choice, and taking the
consequences with that choice. There is however no credible evidence
that wearing a helmet will afford me any protection in a motor vehicle
accident, so saying I take some responsibility for my injuries if I'm
not wearing one is just plain nonsense.

Oh, there is a wealth of correlational evidence that helmets do, in
fact, afford protection. The fact that *experimental* studies cannot
be done doesn't mean that there's no evidence. Thompson, et.al. was
credible evidence... they just tried to go too far and claimed
causality, leading some to dismiss the entire study.

Has it ever been proven that smoking causes health problems. (Hint:
NO.) It there credible evidence that smoking is linked to health
problems? You have a very similar issue here.

It's none of my business whether or not you wear a helmet until you
expect me to assume liability for your head. If you're willing to
shoulder your own risk, then go (helmetless) in peace.

Jones

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:09:22 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

On Jul 13, 8:07*am, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange

wrote:
There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist
not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a
car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the
wedge for helmet compulsion.

Do you happen to have a citation on that? *Actually, I think it's
"bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. *My personal
freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for
exercising it. *I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I
would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and
(hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not
mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event.

Hmm. So, to which activities should that idea apply?
See http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Causes.htm

Remember there are far more pedestrians and motorists dying of fatal
head injuries than cyclists. (Peds are supposedly far worse than
cyclists per mile or per hour.) Also remember that in the US,
bicyclists are less than 1% of the fatal head injuries. Do you plan
to persecute the other 99% of sufferers as well?

Once again, the entire helmet promotion phenomenon is based on a false
claim, which is that bicycling is an unusual source of serious head
injuries.

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

I don't know where you come up with these adsurd statements; however,
I am quite certain that *I* never uttered any of them. I asked about
"a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist not
wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries" because
I have heard that before and believe it to be an urban myth. I think
it's a good idea; however, I doubt it would fly. It rates up there
with the idea that, if you do not have liability insurance, then you
can't sue the other guy.

Jones

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:38:17 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman
°_° wrote:

If the ski runs were lined with concertina wire, skiers would take less
foolish risks.

I'm not worried about the skiers. They can sue the mountain.

Jones

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:39:45 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

So let me see if I understand: if I shoot you and you're not wearing a
bullet-proof vest, at least some of the liability is yours?

If I'm strolling downrange where bullets are common, then, yes. If
you commit a crime, then we're talking about something different.

Golly, y'all really *do* "froth at the mouth", don't you?

Lemme sum up:

I doubt that some "judge in the UK" ruled contributary negligence. I
don't think we're there yet; however, I believe in the idea. The
problem is that judges are usually lawyers and no lawyer will act
against the best interests of the Bar in general. Such a ruling would
reduce motorists' liability and promote the idea of personal
responsibility. If it does happen, it will signal a sea change in
many more areas than bicycle helmets, I say.

Jones

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:06:38 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

So when I beat you around the body with a baseball bat, I won't be
liable unless you choose to wear body armour?

You're mixing criminal assault with a simple accident. For the
latter, I wear a helmet; for the former, I carry a Glock 23. I find
both fairly effective in their respective areas.

But, you are correct... you would not be liable.

Jones

PS: it took you *this* long to figure out that I'm a troll? Kind of
slow, aren't you?

On Jul 13, 6:35*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jul 13, 2:39*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jul 13, 12:56*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

Ah, there is the problem! *With eggs in corrugated boxes, you get
serious egg risk-compensation. *

OK, Jay, you've been harping on risk compensation.

1) *Does this mean you don't believe such a thing exists?

2) *Have you read the book _Risk_ by John Adams?

I'm sure it exists.

If that's the case, you might stop mocking the concept. And read that
book. There's much to learn. More than you seem to think.

*My ski bindings, bicycle brakes, studded bike
(and car) tires, HID lights -- -- they all result in risk compensation.
Would I not use them? No. I just have to know they have limits,
which I do. Same goes with my helmet.

I think this is a major part of the problem: Helmet promoters have
done all they can to tell the public that the same does NOT go for
bike helmets. Or rather, to minimize their colossal limitations.
That's the very reason for that most frequent claim, that bike helmets
"reduce head injuries by [up to] 85%." They recognize that most
people hear that and think "Almost 100%!"

Again, during my state's first attempt at a MHL, the local helmet
queen said "Frank! 85%! It's so simple!!" It took me a year to
convince her that there was anything more to bicycle safety.

Also, my accident-related head injuries have not occurred while I was
taking risks, unless you consider riding home on a rutted road in the
dark with bright headlights an unreasonable risk or falling on ice or
getting hit by a car that violated my right of way. *I don't think
that most head injuries occur on a bike during risky activity unless,
again, you think that riding on a city street is risky.

sigh And the same can be said for head injuries incurred during
walking, unless you consider using a crosswalk is risky. Ditto for
motoring, unless you consider driving on city streets risky. Or
walking around the house, unless you consider rugs and stairs risky...
and so on.

Here's that pie chart of causes of head injuries, once again.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Causes.htm
And remember that for fatalities (which are used for most helmet
promotion, it seems) cycling is an even smaller percentage of the
total.

Now why is it that people advocate helmets (almost) only for
bicycling? Why is it that bicycling gets all the "Danger! Danger!
THIS is what COULD happen!!!" treatment? Again, there's no particular
"per-hour" justification. There's no particular "cost to society"
justification. From what I've been able to tell, after much digging,
there's merely lots of sophisticated salesmanship plus even more
gullibility.

I was on MtHood last week picking up my son from mogul camp, and I
talked to a mother whose young daughter (former national GS champ)
went off in to the rocks on Palmer and avoided more serious injury
because she had a race helmet and CF shin guards (both were perforated
by the rocks). I suppose I could have told her that summer skiing is
really risky and that her daughter should quit -- or that she
shouldn't wear a helmet because it makes her ski in to the rocks, or
something like that.

You mean you might tell her that her daughter should not slide down a
mountain at high speed with no brakes when there's a good chance that
she'll run out of clean snow and into a pile of rocks? Gosh, why
would anybody even think such a thing?

Look, I don't know much about summer skiing. Maybe it's done in such
a way that it's acceptably safe - although you give the impression
it's not.

But surely, you can see our society's schizophrenic attitude toward
risk? On the one hand, we sell 160 mph crotch rockets to 16-year-
olds. We promote extreme skiing and snowboarding, with jumps and
somersaults. We idolize downhill mountain bike racers, free climbers,
extreme kayakers, BASE jumpers and all the rest. And of course, we
need the power of 200 horses in our cars, in case we have the urge to
hit 120 mph sometime.

But we want anti-lock brakes, stability control, and completely
inflatable interiors in our cars. We pad the entire surface of
playgrounds. We paste every conceivable safety warning on every
conceivable piece of equipment. ("Warning! Do not balance on tiptoe
on the top step of this ladder! You may lose your balance!" And of
course, we say "Never, ever ride your bike without a helmet!!!"

The surge in fashion for protection has paralleled the surge in hyper-
risky activities. It's flat out weird - and it's probably giving some
sociologists a field day.

But dammit, there's no need to extend it to ordinary bike riding.
When I was a kid, I was smart enough NOT to ride my bike down the ten-
foot-high pile of construction dirt - at least, not more than once. I
think kids - and adults - need to hear "don't be stupid" a lot more,
rather than "Bicycling is dangerous!!! Always wear your helmet!!!"

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:15:18 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote:

Not that I'm not making a case for or against helmets -- I've long
since decided that's a religious matter best left to private
conscience -- but that I'm discussion the methodology of this ongoing
and unnecessarily heated polemic, the balance of argument and proof in
it.

Well, last Thursday, while under sharp acceleration on a new tandem,
we suffered a structural failure. We did not have time to repent. We
both augured into the pavement; my wife (60 years old) hit her head
hard on the left temple.

Her helmet absorbed the impact, breaking as it was designed to do.
She was knocked unconscious for a couple of minutes; however, she
suffered no head injury.

I simply care not about a study... that helmet saved her life; I was
there; I saw it happen.

And (glory hallelujah) I'm converted. Everyone else is going to hell.

(AMEN!)

Jones

!Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:15:18 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote:

Not that I'm not making a case for or against helmets -- I've long
since decided that's a religious matter best left to private
conscience -- but that I'm discussion the methodology of this ongoing
and unnecessarily heated polemic, the balance of argument and proof
in it.

Well, last Thursday, while under sharp acceleration on a new tandem,
we suffered a structural failure. We did not have time to repent. We
both augured into the pavement; my wife (60 years old) hit her head
hard on the left temple.

Her helmet absorbed the impact, breaking as it was designed to do.
She was knocked unconscious for a couple of minutes; however, she
suffered no head injury.

I simply care not about a study... that helmet saved her life; I was
there; I saw it happen.

And (glory hallelujah) I'm converted. Everyone else is going to hell.

(AMEN!)

Jones

Now you've really done it. Combining common sense with personal experience
and/or observation drives the AHZs absolutely bat**** nuts.

Bill "well done" S.

PS: Glad your wife is OK. She's quite lucky, as well as smart to have been
wearing appropriate protective equipment for a given activity. It's really
not that complicated. (They love it when I say that, too! eg )