Shimano Headset

On Mon, 15 May 2017 13:35:38 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:05:27 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Snipped
A helmet doesn't make you bullet-proof or immortal.

I still take all other sensible precautions when using tools too - not
depending on safety glasses to protect me from stupidity, but giving
my eyes a fighting chance in case carefull use of the tools still
sends something flying towards my eyes. Don't know about you, but I
can only blink SO fast - - -

Might as well give it up now. In this newsgroup those who oppose helmet use do so vehemently and will NEVER be persuaded that a helmet can help.

I had a few hardshell helmets back in the day. One of them I decided to get rid of. I took a hammer to it and it took quite a few very and I mean VERY hard s trikes to break the outer shell. I still have one of the iirc Vetta ones.

Thosde who want to will wear a helmet. Those who don't want to wear a helmet won't and will attack everyone who says a helmet can help.

Cheers

I don't think that anyone is/has argued that one should not wear a
helmet. What has been argued is that bicycling is not a particularly
dangerious pastime and the health benefits of regularly riding a bike
far, far, outweigh the actual "dangers" of riding a bike.

I might add that from my personal observation the scofflaw attitude of
bicyclists probably add far more danger to cycling then a helmet could
possibly compensate for.

What I find puzzling is that in all the "Danger, Danger" arguments no
one ever mentions that some studies bicyclists have been shown to be
the cause of more then 50 percent of all bicycle - auto collisions.

But then, perhaps is one ignores the law and rides like a fool,
he/she/it does require all the safety equipment possible.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2017 8:39 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 8:29:32 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/15/2017 7:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2017 4:35 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:05:27 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
Snipped
A helmet doesn't make you bullet-proof or immortal.

I still take all other sensible precautions when using
tools too - not
depending on safety glasses to protect me from stupidity,
but giving
my eyes a fighting chance in case carefull use of the
tools still
sends something flying towards my eyes. Don't know about
you, but I
can only blink SO fast - - -

Might as well give it up now. In this newsgroup those who
oppose helmet use do so vehemently and will NEVER be
persuaded that a helmet can help.

:-) And by the same token, most of the people who
religiously believe in the great TBI risk of bicycling and
the great protective value of bike helmets will never give
up those beliefs.

I think most of them are convinced that if they hadn't worn
helmets all their lives, bicycling would have killed them.
Which is really odd, considering that bike helmets weren't
available until the mid-1970s.


Jean Robic wore a helmet religiously in the 1940s and 1950s.
You can't ask his opinion. He's dead.

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

The ONE time my helmeted head slammed into the pavememt I was VERY happy that I was wearing that helmet then. I don't care if anyone else wears or doesn't wear a helmet. It's their choice. I do know that in some cses a helmet can really help even if it just means you get up and continue your ride instead of going to the hospital for stiches, wound scrubbing or concusion, after wiping out.

I don't care aboutthe statistics that many can trot out. I care about what happened that time to ME.

That's what Aunt Hattie said about the stump water that cured her
lumbago - for a while. (It's also good for warts, I hear.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

I just KNEW that you'd chime in with your disparaging and snide remarks. Get over it Frank. SOme people see a benefit to wearing a helmet based on THEIR experience not yours.

Cheers

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 11:18:53 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 13:35:38 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:
Snipped
Thosde who want to will wear a helmet. Those who don't want to wear a helmet won't and will attack everyone who says a helmet can help.

Cheers

I don't think that anyone is/has argued that one should not wear a
helmet.
Snipped
--
Cheers,

John B.

Then you haven't been reading Frank's vehement anti-helmet posts.

Mentioning weraing a helmet will bring Frank out on the attack and then with the disparaging and snide comments from him every time.

I NEVER said that bicycling was dangerous. The "DANGER! dANGER!" comments come from Frank. What I did say was thatthe one time I crashed and hit my helmeted head hard against the pavement wasthat a THAT TIME I was glad i was wearing a helmet because I was able to get up and continue my ride. YMMV about helmets and that's your choice to make.

Cheers

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 5:39:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...ast/hp6207.jpg

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

The sound of a helmet cracking in half around your head on impact is a sound you never forget.
The alternative would have been the skull cracking and brain flesh bouncing inside the distorted cranium.
Some people don't get the message to wear a helmet til they're thanking G-d that the still have a coherent brain as the blood drips down the side of their head til the emergency room stitches them up.
A close biking friend in SF was helmetless forever. Not an issue I brought up to her, not open for discussion. Recently, her helmetless head encountered a hard impact with the roadway, the kind that sometimes does end up fatal. I hope to see her with a helmet next time we meet up.
I would be dead twice because the two helmet crackers I had would have both likely been fatal if I didn't have a helmet on.

On Tue, 16 May 2017 04:41:09 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

The overconfidence and "bigger hit area"
arguments I accept as arguments, however how it
plays out in the data who knows.

However the comparisons over time I don't know
as there might be many things changing during
that time and it is very difficult to single
out what leads to what and what doesn't
influence.

Also comparing bike and pedestrian accidents
aren't the same things with many different
factors involved.

It would be better if there were stats like
this: this year, there has been x accidents.
Of those, h(x) involved severe head injuries.
How many bikers in h(x) used helmets?
All of those statistics were given in the links I previously
provided. Frank discounts the stats.

On Mon, 15 May 2017 22:57:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/15/2017 10:41 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
The overconfidence and "bigger hit area"
arguments I accept as arguments, however how it
plays out in the data who knows.

However the comparisons over time I don't know
as there might be many things changing during
that time and it is very difficult to single
out what leads to what and what doesn't
influence.

Also comparing bike and pedestrian accidents
aren't the same things with many different
factors involved.

It would be better if there were stats like
this: this year, there has been x accidents.
Of those, h(x) involved severe head injuries.
How many bikers in h(x) used helmets?

None of this is dead simple. There are always confounding factors.

In my view, even what you propose does not tell the whole story, or
allow for a perfect decision. Why? Because your proposed stats could be
gathered for any activity; yet people think about those things only for
helmets on bicyclists and motorcyclists.

The links I gave previously covered MUCH more than cycling.
You obviously did not read them.

Take a look again at http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm#bikevsother



From the American Association of Neurological Surgeons

The following 20 sports/recreational activities represent the
categories contributing to the highest number of estimated head
injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms in 2009.
•Cycling: 85,389
•Football: 46,948
•Baseball and Softball: 38,394
•Basketball: 34,692
•Water Sports (Diving, Scuba Diving, Surfing, Swimming, Water Polo,
Water Skiing, Water Tubing): 28,716
•Powered Recreational Vehicles (ATVs, Dune Buggies, Go-Carts, Mini
bikes, Off-road): 26,606
•Soccer: 24,184
•Skateboards/Scooters: 23,114
•Fitness/Exercise/Health Club: 18,012
•Winter Sports (Skiing, Sledding, Snowboarding, Snowmobiling): 16,948
•Horseback Riding: 14,466
•Gymnastics/Dance/Cheerleading: 10,223
•Golf: 10,035
•Hockey: 8,145
•Other Ball Sports and Balls, Unspecified: 6,883
•Trampolines: 5,919
•Rugby/Lacrosse: 5,794
•Roller and Inline Skating: 3,320
•Ice Skating: 4,608
The top 10 sports-related head-injury categories among children ages
14 and younger: •Cycling: 40,272
•Football: 21,878
•Baseball and Softball: 18,246
•Basketball: 14,952
•Skateboards/Scooters: 14,783
•Water Sports: 12,843
•Soccer: 8,392
•Powered Recreational Vehicles: 6,818
•Winter Sports: 6,750
•Trampolines: 5,025
*Note: Reported incidence is known to be significantly underreported
(up to 50%, McCrea Clin J Sports med 13:13-17, 2004) and do not
reflect those that are treated by family doctors or other para-medical
professionals.

These are just a few of the information available from
www.helmets.org.


Now I ride both bicycles and motorcycles. But I know the risk of serious
TBI is far, far less on a bicycle than on motorcycle. (Fatalaties per
hour are over 30 times greater for motorcycling than for bicycling.) In
fact, researcher (John Pucher) has computed that in America, pedestrians
have over triple the risk of fatality per km traveled compared to
bicyclists. And the data I've found (cited in a paper I linked earlier)
shows that about 45% of bicycle fatalities are due to TBI, and about 40%
of pedestrian fatalities are due to TBI - in other words, that
difference is small. So when you look at the total numbers of annual
fatalities (about 800 for bikes, about 4500 or more for pedestrians)
it's clear that the pedestrian TBI problem is far bigger in every way.

So, why do we not do studies of the number of severe head injuries of
pedestrians with and without helmets?

Answer: Because there has never been a huge propaganda campaign
pointing out the head injury risks of walking. And nobody has seriously
tried to sell helmets for pedestrians. That's true even though the
problem is far bigger than for biking.

On Tue, 16 May 2017 10:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
That would do. I think Joerg is a special case and could use a tool and some master links because he breaks chains. If you don't break chains . . .

I've broken a couple of chains because I messed up reassembly or, in one case, I had an odd shift on to the big ring and up-shift, and the quick-link snapped open. I probably side-loaded the chain in some odd way. I had no chain tool, but I was close enough to home that I could scooter until my wife came to pick me up.

I broke one chain in the middle of nowhere, but I was on tour and had a chain tool. Another mis-assembled chain broke on the way to work, but I was close enough to work to scooter the last bit, and then I bought a cheap chain tool at lunch. The bad part was dealing with a greasy chain in my backpack.

-- Jay Beattie.

Indeed does Joerg appear to be a special case. However, if I experienced the number of problems/reakages that he does then I'd be carrying a pretty comprehensive repar kit with tools and parts that I'd most likely need. MAybe what Joerg needs to do is fix up a method of towing another bike behind the one that he rides and that way when one bike breaks something major he can then rather than having to walk 20+ miles back to civilization he could just ride the extra bike back and tow the werecked one behind it.

Cheers

I can only say that although I rarely, based on distances cycled, have
a flat I carry a spare tube and patch kit and while I even less
frequently break a chain I still carry a chain tool and a couple of
chain links.

Strange though, although I've had far fewer bike crashes than flat
tires everyone says "wear a helmet" :-)
Generally speeking a flat or broken chain won't kill you.

On Mon, 15 May 2017 22:08:28 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 21:15:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/15/2017 8:13 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

But that's just the U.S. If you look at the
world's cyclists, helmets are still
very uncommon.

Here, helmets are not exactly uncommon but
proportionally usage is low - without any data,
I'd say somewhere around one out of twenty.
However that is the huge mass of "utility"
bikers. Of the people with sport bikes that
also has the "style police" outfit and all the
gear to go with it, with those I'd say the
proportion is the other way around (or close to
100% helmet actually). But those are much, much
fewer in numbers.

That's what I've seen when in Europe. Helmets go with lycra, usually.
But it didn't necessarily connect with going fast. Even the people we
encountered who were part of guided tour groups, pottering at 15kph on
bike paths, often had "sporty" lycra stretched over their bellies, and
oh-so-safe helmets on their heads. But who knows? Many of them were
probably Americans.

OTOH, the elderly ladies riding normal city streets and doing their
shopping on bikes were dressed like - well, like normal people!
Must be a real bitch to worry that much about how you look riding a
bike - - - - - - That you'll look like less of a man if you wear a
helmet.

Sarcasm aside, here I live in a country where people still use a
bicycle for transportation and I can't remember ever seeing these
"transportation" people wear a helmet.

Of course, I do see the lycra clad "recreational" riders, all wearing
their snappy bonnets, unless of course it is raining or too hot when
the seem to vanish. The old ladies, who wouldn't dream of wearing a
helmet and are doing their shopping just put up their umbrella when it
rains or the sun comes out and keep on pedaling :-)


--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 15 May 2017 21:39:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
That would do. I think Joerg is a special case and could use a tool and some master links because he breaks chains. If you don't break chains . . .

I've broken a couple of chains because I messed up reassembly or, in one case, I had an odd shift on to the big ring and up-shift, and the quick-link snapped open. I probably side-loaded the chain in some odd way. I had no chain tool, but I was close enough to home that I could scooter until my wife came to pick me up.

I broke one chain in the middle of nowhere, but I was on tour and had a chain tool. Another mis-assembled chain broke on the way to work, but I was close enough to work to scooter the last bit, and then I bought a cheap chain tool at lunch. The bad part was dealing with a greasy chain in my backpack.

-- Jay Beattie.

Indeed does Joerg appear to be a special case. However, if I experienced the number of problems/reakages that he does then I'd be carrying a pretty comprehensive repar kit with tools and parts that I'd most likely need. MAybe what Joerg needs to do is fix up a method of towing another bike behind the one that he rides and that way when one bike breaks something major he can then rather than having to walk 20+ miles back to civilization he could just ride the extra bike back and tow the werecked one behind it.

Cheers
Perhaps he just needs a better bike. Sounds like he's riding a
"flying pigeon". Those things would break if you looked at them wrong
from 50 feet.

Goodness, there must be a lot of disappointed people. After all Flying
Pigeon sold more than 500 million PA 2 bicycles since 1950, and they
are still in business. The PA 2 model has, as of 2007, sold more then
any other any other model of vehicle.

Can you imagine all those broken hearted owners weeping over their
broken bicycles? Think of it, nearly ten percent of the world's
population, in 2007, with the tears dripping off their chin because
their pigeon broke.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 May 2017 00:16:10 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 10:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
That would do. I think Joerg is a special case and could use a tool and some master links because he breaks chains. If you don't break chains . . .

I've broken a couple of chains because I messed up reassembly or, in one case, I had an odd shift on to the big ring and up-shift, and the quick-link snapped open. I probably side-loaded the chain in some odd way. I had no chain tool, but I was close enough to home that I could scooter until my wife came to pick me up.

I broke one chain in the middle of nowhere, but I was on tour and had a chain tool. Another mis-assembled chain broke on the way to work, but I was close enough to work to scooter the last bit, and then I bought a cheap chain tool at lunch. The bad part was dealing with a greasy chain in my backpack.

-- Jay Beattie.

Indeed does Joerg appear to be a special case. However, if I experienced the number of problems/reakages that he does then I'd be carrying a pretty comprehensive repar kit with tools and parts that I'd most likely need. MAybe what Joerg needs to do is fix up a method of towing another bike behind the one that he rides and that way when one bike breaks something major he can then rather than having to walk 20+ miles back to civilization he could just ride the extra bike back and tow the werecked one behind it.

Cheers

I can only say that although I rarely, based on distances cycled, have
a flat I carry a spare tube and patch kit and while I even less
frequently break a chain I still carry a chain tool and a couple of
chain links.

Strange though, although I've had far fewer bike crashes than flat
tires everyone says "wear a helmet" :-)
Generally speeking a flat or broken chain won't kill you.

Generally speaking neither will a bike accident.

While true that these numbers don't come from the U.S., I would
suggest that they are indicative of bicycle accidents. Their report
http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/adv...facts-figures/
Shows that in 2014 there were 21,287 reported bicycle accidents of
which some 17,773 were only slightly injured. Given that the numbers
are only the accidents that were reported the report estimates that
total accidents may well be twice the numbers shown.

In short it appears that the vast majority of bicycle accidents do not
result in death and the article seems to indicate that perhaps a half
of all bike accidents are so minor as to require no medical attention
at all.
--
Cheers,

John B.