THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW 
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

Per "Tom $herman (-_-)"
":
Try this experiment. Put a foam bicycle hat on a hard surface and whack
it hard with a gloved hand. Then put a Snell M2010 rated moto lid next
to it and whack it hard with a softball bat. See which one is in better
condition afterwards.

But wouldn't a steel pot test even better?
--
Pete Cresswell

On Nov 4, 2:49*pm, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/4/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:









On Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:37:49 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:06 am, wrote:

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 12:13:06 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

Descending sled runs even on studs warrants wearing a helmet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGVA-x3SEnU

I've seen those videos before. *Seems to me that putting on an 8 ounce bike helmet and riding a bike in those conditions constitutes an excellent example of risk compensation. Or really, risk over-compensation.

(Haven't looked at the videos, but... ) Are you saying we should...

what? *Park the bike and take the car?

Watch the video.

- Frank Krygowski

That video had hills.
Check out flat Nederlands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSZGkMfARUg

That's what I'm talking about . . . it's not like those guys were
"risk compensating." They're riding/driving along and "what the
f*** . . . ." and then they're down. And that video from PDX is on a
hill, part of it about 10%, maybe more. Tom would be sledding down
that hill on his motorcycle. Winter weather is not that bad around
here. It is nothing like Wisconsin or the Midwest. But we do get
black ice and the occasional ice storm. I don't care when we get
fresh snow because after about a minute, I get the hang of it, and the
traction is actually pretty good. I've ridden home on 23mm tires in
fresh snow -- past all the snarled traffic. PDX drivers totally choke
in the snow. You're better off on a bike or on foot. I throw the
studs on for old snow, which sucks to ride in.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:28:45 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Nov 4, 2:49*pm, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/4/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:



















On Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:37:49 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

On Nov 4, 11:06 am, wrote:



On Sunday, November 4, 2012 12:13:06 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:



Descending sled runs even on studs warrants wearing a helmet.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGVA-x3SEnU



I've seen those videos before. *Seems to me that putting on an 8 ounce bike helmet and riding a bike in those conditions constitutes an excellent example of risk compensation. Or really, risk over-compensation.



(Haven't looked at the videos, but... ) Are you saying we should...



what? *Park the bike and take the car?



Watch the video.



- Frank Krygowski



That video had hills.

Check out flat Nederlands:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSZGkMfARUg



That's what I'm talking about . . . it's not like those guys were

"risk compensating." They're riding/driving along and "what the

f*** . . . ." and then they're down.

That's true, for the two helmetless cyclists in that video. And of course, neither seemed hurt at all.

But in the video you linked of an extreme ice storm in Portland, with cars sliding everywhere out of control, putting on a bike helmet and saying "Now I'm OK to ride home" would be pretty serious over-compensation. There are times it's just foolish to try to ride a bike, no matter what a person's wearing.

I don't care when we get

fresh snow because after about a minute, I get the hang of it, and the

traction is actually pretty good. I've ridden home on 23mm tires in

fresh snow -- past all the snarled traffic. PDX drivers totally choke

in the snow. You're better off on a bike or on foot. I throw the

studs on for old snow, which sucks to ride in.

I agree about the fresh snow vs. old snow. Unfortunately, our snow hangs around long enough to get a lot older than yours does. :-(

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 6, 7:40*am, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:28:45 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Nov 4, 2:49*pm, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/4/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:37:49 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

On Nov 4, 11:06 am, wrote:

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 12:13:06 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

Descending sled runs even on studs warrants wearing a helmet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGVA-x3SEnU

I've seen those videos before. *Seems to me that putting on an 8 ounce bike helmet and riding a bike in those conditions constitutes an excellent example of risk compensation. Or really, risk over-compensation.

(Haven't looked at the videos, but... ) Are you saying we should....

what? *Park the bike and take the car?

Watch the video.

- Frank Krygowski

That video had hills.

Check out flat Nederlands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSZGkMfARUg

That's what I'm talking about . . . it's not like those guys were

"risk compensating." *They're riding/driving along and "what the

f*** . . . ." and then they're down.

That's true, for the two helmetless cyclists in that video. *And of course, neither seemed hurt at all.


Using anecdotes to make your point?

But in the video you linked of an extreme ice storm in Portland, with cars sliding everywhere out of control, putting on a bike helmet and saying "Now I'm OK to ride home" would be pretty serious over-compensation. *There are times it's just foolish to try to ride a bike, no matter what a person's wearing.


Yes, we know you avoid riding if it's e.g. raining or expected to, but
is there a hard cutoff where hazards go from negligible to
prohibitive? Or is there a vast continuum with plenty of random
unpredictability thrown in. Which sounds more like the real world?

I don't care when we get

fresh snow because after about a minute, I get the hang of it, and the

traction is actually pretty good. *I've ridden home on 23mm tires in

fresh snow -- past all the snarled traffic. *PDX drivers totally choke

in the snow. *You're better off on a bike or on foot. I throw the

studs on for old snow, which sucks to ride in.

I agree about the fresh snow vs. old snow. *Unfortunately, our snow hangs around long enough to get a lot older than yours does. *:-(


http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/en...ers_in_oregon/

On Nov 6, 8:43*am, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:40*am, wrote:









On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:28:45 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Nov 4, 2:49*pm, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/4/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:37:49 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

On Nov 4, 11:06 am, wrote:

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 12:13:06 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

Descending sled runs even on studs warrants wearing a helmet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGVA-x3SEnU

I've seen those videos before. *Seems to me that putting on an 8 ounce bike helmet and riding a bike in those conditions constitutes an excellent example of risk compensation. Or really, risk over-compensation.

(Haven't looked at the videos, but... ) Are you saying we should....

what? *Park the bike and take the car?

Watch the video.

- Frank Krygowski

That video had hills.

Check out flat Nederlands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSZGkMfARUg

That's what I'm talking about . . . it's not like those guys were

"risk compensating." *They're riding/driving along and "what the

f*** . . . ." and then they're down.

That's true, for the two helmetless cyclists in that video. *And of course, neither seemed hurt at all.

Using anecdotes to make your point?

But in the video you linked of an extreme ice storm in Portland, with cars sliding everywhere out of control, putting on a bike helmet and saying "Now I'm OK to ride home" would be pretty serious over-compensation. *There are times it's just foolish to try to ride a bike, no matter what a person's wearing.

Yes, we know you avoid riding if it's e.g. raining or expected to, but
is there a hard cutoff where hazards go from negligible to
prohibitive? *Or is there a vast continuum with plenty of random
unpredictability thrown in. *Which sounds more like the real world?

I don't care when we get

fresh snow because after about a minute, I get the hang of it, and the

traction is actually pretty good. *I've ridden home on 23mm tires in

fresh snow -- past all the snarled traffic. *PDX drivers totally choke

in the snow. *You're better off on a bike or on foot. I throw the

studs on for old snow, which sucks to ride in.

I agree about the fresh snow vs. old snow. *Unfortunately, our snow hangs around long enough to get a lot older than yours does. *:-(

http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/en...ers_in_oregon/

Woo hoo. Summer skiing Mt. Hood! http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaznewt/5843847127/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/s-tankersley/7488963410/

Down on the flats, though, we rarely get snow sticking for more than a
few days or a week.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:37:22 PM UTC, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/05/2012 03:01 PM, Andre Jute wrote:



snip

More than the concept of liberty which undoubtedly is totally foreign



to their Constitution.



Whose Constitution?



Note that it isn't everybody I want to force to wear helmets, only Americans. And I wouldn't even be interested in those, except that Krygowski is such a huge arsehole.



Hey Andre, I'm an American, although an expat one at the moment. I

don't appreciate being put in that same boat. I imagine that out of the

300 odd million or so of us, many would feel the same. I don't have the

data, mind you, it's only an impression...

Ha! I wouldn't want to be lumped in with Krygowski either. It's a cruel thing to do to decent people. But he's so universally hated, and he has such a loud bee in his bonnet, he's a good handle on drawing extra controversy and attention to a necessary case. Notice how Frankie Shavelegs doesn't dare argue with me? It's not just that he knows I'll burn him, it is because his numbers on how safe bicycling is are also mine, from the time when I noticed that the poor dumbass doesn't know any statistics and was overstating the dangers of cycling, and in fairness (I can afford to be fair when up against such poor opposition!) I worked out for him precisely how safe cycling is by comparison to say walking and motoring.

But there are two serious points hiding under the ad hominem personalities the anti-helmet zealots automatically resort to because they know they have neither the facts nor the brains to win a logical argument.

The first one is that, normally, I would let people who want to kill themselves, kill themselves. It's their godgiven right to be stupid. But the American case for wearing a helmet is so startling, so dramatic, so far removed from the usual medical and ward-heeler politics that bedevil helmet-study statistics, that it needs to be made. Again, notice how the anti-helmet scum won't even argue this particular case, indeed Liddell Tommi and his Evil Puppeteer, Krygowski, won't even read it. They know it is overwhelming. A point arrives where even for a libertarian of my stripe to say nothing is morally the next thing to murder. The New York study cited in this thread is that tipping point.

The other major point is that in the States an attitude has grown up in which outright murder by automobile has become socially acceptable. This is a point not grasped by many Americans. Americans, even the cyclists here on RBT, even among the few good minds, think Chalo a little odd when he says that a bicyclist needs not be licensed but a motorist must be, and therefore additional responsibilities fall on the motorist. Chalo and I don't agree on helmets, but it's a matter of interpretation and outlook: we agree on the basic facts, and can both see the sickeningly adverse underlying structures. The attitude in the Benelux, for instance, is much different. There a motorist who murders a cyclist with a huge, powered, blunt instrument is charged with at least manslaughter and very possibly murder. The outlook is different. They don't need helmets; Americans do, until the attitude changes.

Still, to be lumped in with Krygowski... I can understand why you moved to Canada. What can I do to make it up to you?

Andre Jute

On 11/6/2012 8:18 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per "Tom $herman (-_-)"
":
Try this experiment. Put a foam bicycle hat on a hard surface and whack
it hard with a gloved hand. Then put a Snell M2010 rated moto lid next
to it and whack it hard with a softball bat. See which one is in better
condition afterwards.

But wouldn't a steel pot test even better?


That will start after the election

http://socialistworker.org/sites/def...ing-pots-a.jpg

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

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:16:06 AM UTC, wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2012 9:55:13 AM UTC-6, Andre Jute wrote:

THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW


(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
[snipped for bandwidth all my original article which you can read in the first post of this thread]


I didn't send what follows. I don't have an AOL account. Someone else sent it under my name. Presumably his hope is that everyone will be so outraged they will pile in on me. Actually, there are some excellent arguments in there, which I commend to all of you, but in particular to the anti-helmet zealots.

Andre Jute

I have a thought experiment that I haven't replicated yet. Place a helmet on top of a hard round surface. Lift a bowling ball approximately, 1 centimeter above the helmet and drop it, continue ding this one centimeter increment at the time until the helmet cracks. Not sure how hight I would like to lift the bowling ball before it does crack the helmet, but I am certain that I wouldn't like to have the bowling ball fall over my head event below the cracking threshold.



Many would argue that the forces created by a bowling ball may not be the same one from a bike accident. But, I have been in two bike accidents over a period of 25 years, where I cracked a helmet. I am glad that my head w/o a helmet did not have to absorb the same impact. maybe, the reason that I am kind of dumb is that the helmets did not protect me enough.



Regarding those who want zero government control, I wonder where they live. If the own or rent property, if there are paved sidewalks and street outside of their homes, if they don't walk naked whenever they want to, if they use public transportation, or private transportation, or bicycles, or skateboards, or eat in restaurants, or at home, or have their own little private gardens and grow their own food, or take subways, or go out and vote, work, or do anything at all in their lives, they live under "social rules" directed by government. Without them society would simply collapse.



Im not saying that government control is good or bad. But wanting to avoid government control by not wearing helmets, or seat-belts, or joining perma-culture then you are totally naive. Our entire lives are control by a system of government that regulate most of what we do. Thats the case for all societies.



If you want no government control, living alone outside of the grid is the only solution. Buying a bike, from manufacturing to selling, to shipping, to getting it at the bike shop, or at home, or at the swap meet is controlled by government ordinances of all kinds. So, you have a bike, but you think that you are fighting government control by not wearing a helmet? Lol.

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:34:12 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:16:06 AM UTC, wrote:

On Monday, October 29, 2012 9:55:13 AM UTC-6, Andre Jute wrote:



THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW




(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

[snipped for bandwidth all my original article which you can read in the first post of this thread]





I didn't send what follows. I don't have an AOL account. Someone else sent it under my name. Presumably his hope is that everyone will be so outraged they will pile in on me. Actually, there are some excellent arguments in there, which I commend to all of you, but in particular to the anti-helmet zealots.


Oops. That excellent post was sent by Andres Muro but Google showed me only part of the sender's name. Duh. What I say about recommend Andres' post to the AHZ stands. -- Andre Jute




I have a thought experiment that I haven't replicated yet. Place a helmet on top of a hard round surface. Lift a bowling ball approximately, 1 centimeter above the helmet and drop it, continue ding this one centimeter increment at the time until the helmet cracks. Not sure how hight I would like to lift the bowling ball before it does crack the helmet, but I am certain that I wouldn't like to have the bowling ball fall over my head event below the cracking threshold.







Many would argue that the forces created by a bowling ball may not be the same one from a bike accident. But, I have been in two bike accidents over a period of 25 years, where I cracked a helmet. I am glad that my head w/o a helmet did not have to absorb the same impact. maybe, the reason that I am kind of dumb is that the helmets did not protect me enough.







Regarding those who want zero government control, I wonder where they live. If the own or rent property, if there are paved sidewalks and street outside of their homes, if they don't walk naked whenever they want to, if they use public transportation, or private transportation, or bicycles, or skateboards, or eat in restaurants, or at home, or have their own little private gardens and grow their own food, or take subways, or go out and vote, work, or do anything at all in their lives, they live under "social rules" directed by government. Without them society would simply collapse.







Im not saying that government control is good or bad. But wanting to avoid government control by not wearing helmets, or seat-belts, or joining perma-culture then you are totally naive. Our entire lives are control by a system of government that regulate most of what we do. Thats the case for all societies.







If you want no government control, living alone outside of the grid is the only solution. Buying a bike, from manufacturing to selling, to shipping, to getting it at the bike shop, or at home, or at the swap meet is controlled by government ordinances of all kinds. So, you have a bike, but you think that you are fighting government control by not wearing a helmet? Lol.

On Nov 6, 10:59*am, Andre Jute wrote:

snip

The other major point is that in the States an attitude has grown up in which outright murder by automobile has become socially acceptable.

And you would approach this problem by restricting bicycling?

snip