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

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

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

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

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

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.

--

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

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)

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.

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