A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shimano Headset



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old May 17th 17, 02:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Shimano Headset

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:34:52 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Similarly, I've given talks to bike clubs and
community groups on the topic of bike safety.
I've asked "What percentage of America's
brain injury deaths do you think are caused
by bike crashes?" I've had an entire room
full of people agree that its about 30
percent. The actual figure is about 0.6%.


Every injury to the head following an accident
which involves a bike should be analyzed and
booked with some rough scale of graveness say
from 1-10 where 1 is a scratch and 4 is
a dislocated jaw and 10 is death (just
examples, the system would have to be agreed
upon by a group of experts). Then the data
would be analyzed. Also the helmet should be
analyzed, or what is left of it, to get an
estimate if it helped or not. All this
parameterized into a computer to do graphs
and charts.


Don't tell me - you live in a large city. You think that most of the hospitals in this country are on the web so that they can release personal information from a virus attack.
Ads
  #202  
Old May 17th 17, 03:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Shimano Headset

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:55:50 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2017 5:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2017 12:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:

IMO, the fact that helmets are proven to prevent certain injuries does not justify mandating helmet use. It does justify the personal choice to wear a helmet, particularly for those people who ride dirt trails, wet descents, in snow, etc.

And for those who don't believe in risk compensation: The subtext in
Jay's sentence is that if you're going to ride in snow, wet descents or
dirt trails, a helmet is justifiable.

Would you ride those conditions without a helmet?


Yes, if I forgot my helmet and had to get to or from work. I wouldn't choose not to wear a helmet. I might walk a trail section rather than riding it without a helmet, but who knows. I'm not a skilled trail rider.


Think about what you said. You might walk it if you forgot your helmet.
But you ride it because you have a helmet. That is classic risk
compensation: You're willing to take on more risk because you feel
there's some protection. Isn't that obvious?


Yes, and that's how one gains confidence and skill, by taking calculated risk while using appropriate protective equipment. You call it "risk compensation" like it was some dreaded disease. I call it it risk avoidance during the learning phase. It's not as though a wearing a helmet is going to prompt me to drop down vertical rock chutes with abandon. I still worry about my other appendages, but I am going to feel that I have a modicum of protection while picking my way along root pots and rocks on descending single track. I don't get why it is a bad thing to mitigate the effects of an inevitable fall. Yes, I fall on tight descending trail, usually into a bunch of sword ferns, but sometimes harder stuff. I'm never going fast or doing anything remotely crazy. I'm just learning a skill, and in fact, a skill that translates into better road bike handling, including the ability to deal with unexpected low traction and other conditions.

On the road, I'm less of risk-taker with a helmet than I was in my pre-helmet days, when I had the motor to do stupid things and no metal plates, rods, etc.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #203  
Old May 17th 17, 05:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/17/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:02:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/16/2017 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:26:05 AM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Because you require a base line with which to
strike comparisons.

Shouldn't the comparison be helmet vs.
no helmet on biker in accident with
head injuries?

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Exactly how do you do that? 98% of bicycle accidents are never reported since they have no severe injuries. And they do not list whether or not a serious injury was wearing a helmet and hospitals have enough to do without worrying about keeping statistics for someone else.

What we do know is that from zero helmet use to almost universal use by sports riders there has been no change in injuries. If that isn't good enough for you then perhaps you can gather the statistics.


I wonder if Emanuel has looked at TBI data for the Tour de France.
Roughly 100 years, typically hundreds of riders per year, doing
thousands of miles, in the most grueling conditions, and for almost its
entire history without helmets.

Where was the plague of serious brain injuries?


It might also be interesting that the bulk of the professional riders
participating in the major bicycle races in Europe resisted vigorously
the enforcement of the mandatory helmet rule.


Exactly. If they had observed lots of serious brain injuries among
their cohorts, would they not have welcomed a helmet mandate? Instead
they went on strike to prevent the rule, until back room deals caused
the rule to be imposed on them.

Speaking of deals: Can you imagine the increase in profits that have
resulted from changing the image of pro racers? Once the "fast
recreation riders" AKA wannabee racers would buy the $10 cotton caps
their heroes wore. Now they buy $200 styrofoam sculptures.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #204  
Old May 17th 17, 05:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/17/2017 6:05 AM, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 15:45:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/16/2017 1:06 PM, Duane wrote:
On 16/05/2017 12:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
IMO, the fact that helmets
are proven to prevent certain injuries does not justify mandating
helmet use. It does justify the personal choice to wear a helmet,
particularly for those people who ride dirt trails, wet descents, in
snow, etc.


Or apparently those who ride with a group containing a member trying to
channel Chris Froome.

As I've written in articles for our club's newsletter, I think it's
important to stay well away from certain riders. I've seen bad riders
take out good riders.

I'm sure you've seen what you would have considered good riders, up
untill the incident, take out other good and not so good riders too.


Right. Only bad riders have accidents. Like Chris Froome. Ridiculous.


What I've written about is avoiding riders who don't hold a steady line;
or riders who pass close without warning, especially on one's blind
side; or riders who take unnecessary risks, like taking corners at
extreme speeds; or riders who flout traffic laws.

Having said that, we had one r.b.tech denizen who claimed one could not
be a good rider unless he crashed a lot. I think that's total nonsense.

I claim that almost every crash is an indication of a rider mistake. To
me, "There was gravel in that corner!" translates as "I didn't think to
look for gravel in that corner." To me, "That driver right hooked me"
translates as "I was going straight, but I put myself to the right of a
right turning car." To me, "She opened her car door right in front of
me!" translates as "I was dumb enough to ride in the door zone."

I can visualize a few motorist moves that a cyclist could not prevent.
I can visualize a few crash types caused by unpredictable component
failure. But I think almost every bike crash indicates a mistake at
some point by the bike rider.

But who am I to talk? I have so little experience with crashing. I've
had only two moving on-road falls since beginning adult riding in 1972.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #205  
Old May 17th 17, 05:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/17/2017 10:08 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:55:50 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2017 5:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2017 12:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:

IMO, the fact that helmets are proven to prevent certain injuries does not justify mandating helmet use. It does justify the personal choice to wear a helmet, particularly for those people who ride dirt trails, wet descents, in snow, etc.

And for those who don't believe in risk compensation: The subtext in
Jay's sentence is that if you're going to ride in snow, wet descents or
dirt trails, a helmet is justifiable.

Would you ride those conditions without a helmet?

Yes, if I forgot my helmet and had to get to or from work. I wouldn't choose not to wear a helmet. I might walk a trail section rather than riding it without a helmet, but who knows. I'm not a skilled trail rider.


Think about what you said. You might walk it if you forgot your helmet.
But you ride it because you have a helmet. That is classic risk
compensation: You're willing to take on more risk because you feel
there's some protection. Isn't that obvious?


Yes, and that's how one gains confidence and skill, by taking calculated risk while using appropriate protective equipment. You call it "risk compensation" like it was some dreaded disease. I call it it risk avoidance during the learning phase. It's not as though a wearing a helmet is going to prompt me to drop down vertical rock chutes with abandon. I still worry about my other appendages, but I am going to feel that I have a modicum of protection while picking my way along root pots and rocks on descending single track. I don't get why it is a bad thing to mitigate the effects of an inevitable fall. Yes, I fall on tight descending trail, usually into a bunch of sword ferns, but sometimes harder stuff. I'm never going fast or doing anything remotely crazy. I'm just learning a skill, and in fact, a skill that translates into better road bike handling, including the ability to deal with unexpected low traction and other conditions.

On the road, I'm less of risk-taker with a helmet than I was in my pre-helmet days, when I had the motor to do stupid things and no metal plates, rods, etc.


I'm not saying risk compensation is a bad thing. I'm saying it's a
thing; it's normal human behavior. This is in contrast to Mr. Clare who
says only an incredibly stupid person would exhibit such behavior.

But risk _over_ compensation is a bad thing.

For more detail: The degree of risk compensation doubtlessly depends
heavily on the person's awareness of the protective measure and
assessment of the level of protection. People don't compensate at all
if a measure isn't known, and they compensate more (i.e. take more risk)
if the measure is prominent in their attention. People will compensate
more if they believe the measure is tremendously, almost 100%, effective.

What we get with a bike helmet is protection that is almost impossible
to ignore, and that has been touted for 25 years as being almost 100%
effective. ("85% reduction!") It's a situation prime for _over_
compensation.

So in your case, I'm not saying don't ride your mountain bike on rough
trails. I'm saying keep in mind that your helmet is certified against
only a perfectly linear impact at about 14 mph.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #206  
Old May 17th 17, 08:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Shimano Headset

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:40:00 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

So in your case, I'm not saying don't ride your mountain bike on rough
trails. I'm saying keep in mind that your helmet is certified against
only a perfectly linear impact at about 14 mph.


And that impact is above the level that can cause a concussion.

  #207  
Old May 17th 17, 09:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default Shimano Headset

Exactly how do you do that? 98% of bicycle
accidents are never reported since they have
no severe injuries.


If an accident isn't reported and involve no
severe injuries it might as well be cancelled
out of the investigation. For such accidents
the helmet shouldn't really play a role anyway.

hospitals have enough to do without worrying
about keeping statistics for someone else.


Don't you have universities and Ph.D.
students who produce research on sport safety,
traffic safety, who test and compare safety
gear, not to mention university hospitals that
do research on all kind of trauma to the body
and the head?

But yes, no matter who deiced and/or financed
the undertaking it would have to be done with
the approval of the hospitals.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
  #208  
Old May 17th 17, 09:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default Shimano Headset

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*.
Besides, how many TBIs are non-fatal?

There are research on stuff considerably more
goofy/arcane and detached than that.

And such a study wouldn't even be expensive or
difficult. Any small group of Ph.D. students in
their 20s and 30s should be able to carry it
out and compile the result.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
  #209  
Old May 17th 17, 09:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default Shimano Headset

John B. wrote:

But that isn't what happens. Every study I've
seen is based on visits to
a medical facility.


Yes, and why is that a problem?

Stats from the wild will never be perfect.
If two tendencies are compared, the
sample/compile method and thus the stats will
always favor one of the two, unfairly.

It won't be perfect, but the better the method,
the closer it gets. And if one tendency is much
stronger, the stats will favor it no matter
the imperfection.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
  #210  
Old May 17th 17, 09:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default Shimano Headset

Don't tell me - you live in a large city.
You think that most of the hospitals in this
country are on the web so that they can
release personal information from
a virus attack.


Say what?

I haven't worked in a hospital but my
impression is they are understaffed.

However this kind of study does not require
hundreds of people or tons of
number-crunching machines.

But even if it did - so what? It appears to be
a relevant field of study, don't you think?

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shimano headset with hose clamp (for Frank) Joerg[_2_] Techniques 34 June 8th 16 03:04 PM
FA: NOS Shimano Dura Ace 1" HP-7410 threaded headset retrofan Marketplace 0 August 14th 08 04:41 AM
WTB: Mavic 305 or Shimano Dura Ace 1" threaded headset LawBoy01 Marketplace 2 August 14th 08 12:02 AM
Installing shimano 105 headset Neil Smith UK 1 November 7th 07 06:49 PM
FA: Pinarello frame, fork, Shimano Dura Ace headset retrofan Marketplace 0 July 6th 07 11:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.