helmet

On 11/6/2012 10:08 PM, James wrote:
On 7/11/2012 3:04 PM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 10/27/2012 2:39 PM, Dan O wrote:
[...]
Hey, you want to help make things better? I hear Ohio is *the*
pivotal battleground for election of the next POTUS. I know we can
count on you to help make it happen. (Pull it off and you truly
*will* be our hero.)


"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the
votes decide everything." - Ioseb Besarionis dze Dzhugashvili


What did he say about those who rig the voting machines?

The Eight Families are tired of their Middle East plaything, it seems.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On Friday, October 26, 2012 6:26:04 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(Helmets do nothing against rotational

acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)



Got data?



I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface

than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.



--

JS.

You're wicked, James. A serious cyclist isn't supposed to have a sense of humour.

Andre "The Grim" Jute

On Friday, October 26, 2012 12:05:01 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly

beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and

enlighten me.



Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone

else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.



--

Andrew Muzi

www.yellowjersey.org/

Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Good heavens, how old-fashioned, actually trying to persuade people of something.

But there is new and better data, which, interestingly, the usual ******s claim not to have read. The question arises, are people like Sherman and Krygowski really so thick and badly educated as their refusal to consider the New York study suggests, or are they stupid-smart, not reading those particular facts because they know there is no answer, that those numbers make a killer argument for an MHL in the United States. It doesn't take a lot of brains to see that, actually, I suspect anyone who can get an engineering degree, even from a third-rate American college, can handle the simple statistics required.

Of course, it may just be that I've burned them too often, and that eventually even such thickos learn to stay away from fire. That's a depressing thought, because the necessary corollary is that they're dumb enough truly to believe the that anti-helmet zealotry they spout so religiously.

Andre Jute

On Friday, October 26, 2012 12:12:03 AM UTC+1, datakoll wrote:

Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident.

You really have no class, Daniels. You're scum.

Andre Jute

whoa ! have you gone thru the Wiki ? jeeeez but there's mining in there. hmmmm maybe look thru 'seatbelts' and 'airbags' to ompari.

how many off your customers wear helmets ? here only the peloton maybe 15 tops mid winter A group.

now i'm worried abt wearing mine maybe I'll get run down bya an r neck ?

search images for: upsidedown mini cooper.

excting evening ! whew oooo ! almost as goog as don larsen.

hrd to believe an election won by lack of tree trimming, obver kill with nitrogen not enough phosphorous.

but there yugo.

now if Boner can raide taxes while looking like he's lowering taxes ...

wowo, you should see wal's bike lineup down here for snowbird xmas....incroyable

100' 3 hi n across the ceiling...yawl see wals mirror lineup ? 6 ?

cringe dude ! wal has bikes this year lookin like my redline cyclocrosser in CDT trim....

whu I gotta go here's heidi...

On Oct 27, 11:39*am, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:18 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Oct 27, 2:50 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

*But modern helmets are pretty svelt, and they do
prevent nasty scalp injuries, and no matter what anyone says, nasty
scalp injuries are not uncommon for people who ride competitively or
frequently or in reduced-traction environments, viz., what I will be
riding in for the next six months.

Do you think there's a way we could get helmet promoters to restrict
their efforts to those who will be riding competitively, or in reduced-
traction environments?

... or at least *emphasize* that sort of thing.

That would be a great improvement over the current "NEVER ride your
bike without a helmet" schtick.

Yep.

Hey, you want to help make things better? *I hear Ohio is *the*
pivotal battleground for election of the next POTUS. *I know we can
count on you to help make it happen. *(Pull it off and you truly
*will* be our hero.)

You did it!

"Democracy... can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own
opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. ... stirs passions,
stirs up controversy."

"But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes... "

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:37:56 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

I think you'll find there are more people riding bike here in Australia

now than before the MHL was introduced.

Correct, if you look at raw counts, but that's due only to rising population. Australia's population has increased greatly since the MHLs were introduced, but cycling has not kept up. Per capita cycling participation decreased significantly after the MHLs, and never got back to pre-MHL levels. That's in contrast to the per capita growth of cycling in most other westernized countries.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:37:56 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

I think you'll find there are more people riding bike here in Australia

now than before the MHL was introduced.

I should have included the following in my other reply, since some people actually do look at numbers. This comes from
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bicycle_numbers.html

"In Melbourne, surveys at the same 64 observation sites (PDF 535kb) in May 1990 and May 1991 found there were 29% fewer adults and 42% fewer child cyclists (36% overall). Each site was observed for two 5 hour periods chosen from the four time blocks of weekday morning, weekend morning, weekday afternoon and weekend afternoon, representing a total of 640 hours of observation. The weather was broadly similar for both surveys. Victoria introduced compulsory bike helmet legislation in late 1990.

"In the first year of compulsory helmet legislation in Victoria, child cycling went down by 36% and child head injuries went down by 32%. Surveys taken in May/June 1990, 1991 and 1992, reported by Cameron et al. (1992), indicated that total children's bicycling activity in Victoria had reduced by 36% in the first year of the helmet law, and by a total of 45% in the second year.

"Census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics illustrates how the introduction of an all-age mandatory bicycle helmet law in 1990 has discouraged healthy commuter cycling in the state of Victoria for more than 16 years. ABS data published in Walking and Cycling: Census Analysis (PDF 6mb) published by Bartley Consulting on behalf of the Victorian Department of Transport's Walking and Cycling Branch shows cycling-only work trips across Victoria increased from 17,190 in 1996 to 18,910 in 2001 and 25,180 in 2006 - seemingly a substantial increase. However, mandatory all-age bicycle helmet laws were enforced throughout Victoria in 1990 and the ABS data should be compared with results before law enforcement (Excel 84kb). This ABS data shows cycle-only work trips in Victoria we

1976 - 17,570
1981 - 23,737
1986 - 24,022 (1.75% of the workforce)
All-age mandatory bicycle helmet law introduced in 1990
1991 - 18,334
1996 - 17,190
2001 - 18,910
2006 - 25,180 (1.4% of the workforce)

"The Victoria Bicycle Strategy 1990 reported that cycling in the state increased by about 10% to 12% per year from 1986 to 1989, suggesting Victoria's cycle-only commuters numbered well over 30,000 per day in 1990 - the year the mandatory helmet law was introduced.

"Victoria's population increased from 4,019,478 in 1986 to 4,560,155 in 1996, 5,128,310 in 2001 and 4,932,422 in 2006. Twenty years later and taking population growth into account, Victoria still had about 20% less cyclists per capita than in 1986.

"VicRoads data shows the growth in Victoria commuter cyclist numbers stalled and fell following mandatory helmet law enforcement in 1990.

"In 1991, Australian Cyclist magazine first publicised the downturn in Victorian and NSW cyclist numbers as result of the imposition of mandatory helmet laws in those states."

There have been many attempts to hide those facts. Some have said "Ah, but cyclist counts have risen," and carefully failed to mention that population has risen much more. But my favorite obfuscation was a post-MHL cyclist count that happened to include one site that a big bike rally rode through. Rather than exclude that anomalous event, the pro-MHL people blithely added those hundreds of cyclists into their totals, pretending they were normal bike commuters.

The performance of Melbourne's bike share program, compared to almost any other one in the world, is another inconvenient fact for those who claim that mandating helmets doesn't hurt cycling levels. Actually, Melbourne has a "bike parking" program rather than a "bike sharing" program. Unlike Paris, Dublin, London, etc., most of Melbourne's share bikes just sit there, unused.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 11:45:13 AM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:39*am, Dan O wrote:


Hey, you want to help make things better? *I hear Ohio is *the*

pivotal battleground for election of the next POTUS. *I know we can

count on you to help make it happen. *(Pull it off and you truly

*will* be our hero.)



You did it!

Sounds like Romney would have lost even if he had won Ohio, so it wasn't just Ohio folks who did it.

I was more gratified by Sherrod Brown's successful defense of his Senate seat, despite record-setting avalanches of attack money courtesy of "Citizens United," the Koch boys, etc. The spending in Ohio was simply obscene. People in other states probably can't conceive how heavily we were inundated. And the candidate they picked to oppose Brown really looked bad to me. (Just to be clear, I'm not a one ticket man.)

OTOH, I guess the TV stations and newspapers reaped real benefit. I wonder if anyone's tallied that boost to Ohio's economy?

- Frank Krygowski

On Oct 26, 3:12*am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:37:46 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:

If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death

in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.

Actually a lot has changed since 1998.

Snipped

Yes, *a lot has changed. One thing is that it is nowextremely difficult to find a hard-shell bicycling helmet in the average bicycle shop.

I've had a few intersting personal experiences with two soft-shell helmets.

One was when I wiped out and smacked the side of my helmet clad head against the pavement. No contusions or anything else and was able to immediately get up and ride without having to wash off any blood or patch a cut on the head.

Interestingly enough the other was when I dropped another helmet from the bicycle handlebar where the helmet had been hanging by its fastened chinstrap and 3" x 1" section of the lower lwft side of the helmet broke off upon impact. That was not even 3' and it was a straight drop with no forward momentum.

I wear a helmet primarily for the use of the helmet mounted mirror.

I wonder if the US Army Kevlar helmet would be a better choice? ;)

Cheers

Gaffer tape?